MAINE

GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT

A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

1 9 9 8 F I N A L R E P O R T

University of Maine, Orono, ME

Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

United States Geological Survey Biological Resources Division
THE MAINE GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

October 1998

Dr. William B. Krohn, Principal Co-Investigator

USGS Biological Resources Division

Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Dr. Randall B. Boone, Research Scientist

Department of Wildlife Ecology and

Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Dr. Steven A. Sader, Principal Co-Investigator

Maine Image Analysis Laboratory

Department of Forest Management

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Jeffrey A. Hepinstall, Research Scientist

Maine Image Analysis Laboratory

Department of Forest Management

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Sandra M. Schaefer, Research Assistant

Department of Wildlife Ecology and

Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Stephanie L. Painton, Research Assistant

Department of Wildlife Ecology and

Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Contract Administration Through:

Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755

Submitted by:

William B. Krohn

Research Performed Under:

Cooperative Agreement No. 14-16-0009-1557

Research Work Order Nos. 28, 33 and 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION..................................................................................................................................i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS....................................................................................................x

LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................................xii

INTRODUCTION

Organization of Report ..........................................................................................................1

GAP Mission........................................................................................................................1

Gap Analysis Concept..........................................................................................................2

General Limitations..............................................................................................................3

Study Area ...........................................................................................................................4

LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................8

Land Cover Classification....................................................................................................9

Mapping Standards...............................................................................................................9

Methods..............................................................................................................................10

The Land Cover Classification ..............................................................................10

Imagery and Ancillary Data ..................................................................................10

Land Cover Map Development..............................................................................15

Special Feature Mapping........................................................................................15

Edge-Matching Polygons.......................................................................................16

Results................................................................................................................................16

Accuracy Assessment.........................................................................................................19

Introduction ............................................................................................................19

Methods..................................................................................................................19

Results....................................................................................................................20

Limitations and Discussion ................................................................................................24

PREDICTED ANIMAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES RICHNESS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................26

Mapping Standards.............................................................................................................27

Methods..............................................................................................................................27

Mapping Range Extent...........................................................................................27

Wildlife Habitat Relationships...............................................................................28

Distribution Modeling ............................................................................................32

Summary Analysis .................................................................................................34
Results................................................................................................................................35

 Accuracy Assessment.........................................................................................................42

 Methods..................................................................................................................43

 Results....................................................................................................................46

Limitations and Discussion ................................................................................................53

 Mapping Range Limits...........................................................................................53

 Habitat Associations...............................................................................................54

 Accuracy Assessment.............................................................................................55

LAND STEWARDSHIP

Introduction ........................................................................................................................57

Mapping Standards.............................................................................................................58

Methods..............................................................................................................................59

Ownership Mapping...............................................................................................59

Management Categorization ..................................................................................60

Results................................................................................................................................62

Accuracy Assessment.........................................................................................................66

Limitations and Discussion ................................................................................................66

ANALYSIS BASED ON OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

Introduction ........................................................................................................................68

Land Cover Analysis..........................................................................................................69

Description of Land Cover Analysis......................................................................70

Limitations and Discussion ....................................................................................75

Predicted Vertebrate Distributions Analysis......................................................................75

Description of Verebrate Distributions Analysis...................................................75

Analysis of Special Species....................................................................................80

Bicknell’s Thrush .......................................................................................80

American Beaver........................................................................................82

Bald Eagle ..................................................................................................84

White-tailed Deer.......................................................................................87

Representational Analysis......................................................................................91

Limitations and Discussion ....................................................................................91

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................93

Conservation and Management..........................................................................................93

Research .............................................................................................................................97

Closing Remarks................................................................................................................98

PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILITY

 How To Obtain the Data ...................................................................................................99

 Disclaimer .........................................................................................................................99

Metadata..........................................................................................................................100

 Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses ...............................................................................101
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................103

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................116

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................123
i

We dedicate this Maine gap analysis to

Henry David Thoreau, who, in an unscientific

yet holistic sense, understood the values

of Maine’s biodiversity.

From this elevation, just on the skirts of the clouds,

we could overlook the country, west and south, for a hundred miles.

There it was, the State of Maine.... Immeasurable forest for the sun

to shine on.... No clearing, no house. It did not look as if a

solitary traveler had cut so much as a walking-stick there.

Countless lakes,...and mountains also, whose names,

for the most part, are known only to the Indians.

Thoreau - The Maine Woods, 1848
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Maine Gap Analysis Project (ME-GAP) was initiated in 1992 as a cooperative effort

between the Biological Resources Division of the US Geological Survey (USGS) and state,

federal, and private natural resources groups in Maine. The objectives of ME-GAP were to: (1)

produce databases for use in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) at a scale of 1:100,000 to

describe current land cover, distributions of native species of terrestrial (i.e., non-fish, nonmarine) vertebrate species, ownership of conservation and public lands, and land management

status; (2) identify land cover types and vertebrate species that currently are not represented or

are under-represented in areas managed for long-term maintenance of biodiversity (i.e., identify

conservation gaps); and (3) facilitate cooperative development and use of information so that

institutions, agencies, and private land owners may be more effective stewards of Maine’s

biological resources. ME-GAP is a preliminary step toward the more detailed studies and efforts

needed for the long-term conservation of biodiversity in Maine.

The system used to classify the land cover consisted of 37 types (19 upland types, 16

wetlands, 2 water). This classification was a compromise between the habitats needed to predict

vertebrate distributions and those classes that could be discerned from satellite imagery and

ancillary GIS databases. Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery from 1991 and 1993, in

conjunction with aerial videography, was used to identify and map the water and upland types.

Wetland polygons came primarily from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands

Inventory (NWI). NWI maps of Maine were done at 1:24,000 and based on aerial photographs

mostly from the mid- and late-1980s. To facilitate the predicting of vertebrate species’

distributions, NWI wetland types, defined largely in terms of physiographic locations on the

landscape, were re-labeled so types related to the occurrences of vertebrates in terms of

vegetative and structural characteristics. A comparison of vegetation and land cover types

mapped from TM data to aerial videography had an overall accuracy of 88.1% at the level of

superclasses. For groups of Forestland classes, accuracy levels range from 45% to 80%;

accuracy by types also varied geographically across the state as different TM scenes were used in

various parts of the state.
iii

A GIS database of private and public conservation lands was assembled in cooperation

with the Maine State Planning Office. Conservation lands comprise less than 6% of

Maine with public lands consisting of approximately 5.3%. Conservation lands are well

distributed throughout the state except for the northwestern portion, which is largely

without public conservation lands. In southern Maine, conservation lands are highly

scattered and generally smaller than in the rest of the state. Private commercial

forestlands (i.e., large blocks in corporate ownership) and Native American lands

managed for forestry, encompass approximately 50% of Maine. Lands were denoted as

to the degree to which they are managed for maintenance of biodiversity and long-term

ecological processes. The Gap Analysis Program requires use of a 1 through 4 scale to

denote high to low management for biodiversity maintenance based on legal and

management status. While not all lands could be unequivocally classified as to

management Category, less than 3% of the state occurs in management Categories 1 and

2, with almost no Category 1 lands in southern Maine (lands owned by the Maine

Chapter of The Nature Conservancy are the exception). Category 3 lands made up

almost 53% of the state and consist primarily of privately owned or public multiple-use

forestlands. Category 4 lands occur mostly in southern Maine, along the coast, and in the

northeastern corner of the state. The land ownership map should not be interpreted as a

legal document, but as a representation of general ownership patterns.

The number of species (i.e., richness) of native terrestrial vertebrates that regularly breed

in Maine (n = 270) is highest in coastal and southern Maine. This pattern is similar to the

richness patterns of terrestrial threatened and endangered species and woody plants. In

the long term, human occupation of the natural landscape is the driving force underlying

habitat loss. The density of Maine’s human populations in 1990 was highest in the

coastal and southern portions of the state. The distribution of Maine’s human population

is changing (like elsewhere in the Nation) with people moving out of population centers

into adjacent rural areas; the redistribution of people into rural areas is most extensive in

southern Maine. When looking at the distribution of conservation lands by management

categories, note few Category 1 areas occur statewide. Southern Maine is clearly the area

of highest richness of terrestrial vertebrates, threatened and endangered species, and

woody plants, but contains only small and scattered Category 2 and 3 conservation lands.

In addition to coastal and southern Maine, the northwestern part of Maine also merits

special consideration in conservation planning because this region contains few reserves

and provides habitat for northern species at the southern limits of their distributions.

To demonstrate the flexibility of ME-GAP data, two sets of species-specific conservation

analyses of terrestrial vertebrates are presented. In set one, data related to the

management of a rare forest bird (i.e., Bicknell’s Thrusha) and a common aquatic

mammal (American Beaver) were analyzed using predicted distributions from ME-GAP.

In set two, analyses were done on actual habitat data collected by Maine’s Department of

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for an uncommon wetland species (Bald Eagle)

versus a widespread upland mammal (White-tailed Deer). The range of issues covered

by these examples clearly shows that this report has barely touched the potential of the

data assembled herein to address conservation and management, as well as research,

questions.
iv

With the completion of ME-GAP, the long-term maintenance, revision, and application

of the GIS databases is a concern. In addition to these data becoming part of the National

Biological Information Infrastructure of the USGS Biological Resources Division, these

databases will be housed and used by various state agencies. The MDIFW will continue

to use the vertebrate data (i.e., range limits and habitat associations) and the vegetation

and land cover map; the Maine Image Analysis Laboratory, University of Maine, will

store and use the TM and aerial videography data; and the Maine Office of GIS will

maintain and distribute the conservation and public lands database created by the SPO

and ME-GAP. In the end, the relative success of this project should be judged on how

long these databases are revised and reused in the decision-making processes affecting

Maine’s biological resources.
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Amos Eno and the staff of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, who

funded the early development of the Gap Analysis concept. Thanks to John Mosesso and

Doyle Frederick of the USGS’ Biological Resources Division (BRD), Office of Inventory

and Monitoring, for their support of the National Biological Service and then to the

USGS’ BRD. We thank Reid Goforth and the staff at the BRD Cooperative Research

Units for administering GAP’s research and development phase from headquarters.

Without those mentioned above, there could not have been a Gap Analysis Program.

Thanks also to the staffs of the National Gap Analysis Program, Center for Biological

Informatics, and BRD’s headquarters. We also acknowledge contributions to this report

by Chris Cogan, Patrick Crist, Blair Csuti, Tom Edwards, Mike Jennings, and Mike Scott.

Without the above people there would not have been a Gap Analysis Program.

Within Maine, the Maine Gap Analysis Project (ME-GAP) would not have been possible

without the continuous support of many cooperators. We especially acknowledge the

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for use of various species databases,

and for providing help in reviewing vertebrate range maps and habitat associations. In

particular we wish to acknowledge the support by, and interest in, landscape-level

Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses by Ken Elowe and Mark Stadler. We

gratefully appreciate the work of Dick Kelly, Maine State Planning Office (SPO).

Without Dick’s cartographic skills and knowledge of Maine’s conservation organizations

we could not have created a credible database of the state’s conservation lands. We thank

T. Hoffman and G. Barnes of the Penobscot Indian Nation and Passamaquoddy Indian

Tribe, respectively, for providing information on ownership of Native American lands.

Richard Sherwood, SPO, was very helpful in introducing us to the intricasies of data from

the US Bureau of Census. The State Office of GIS, especially Dan Walters, always

responded to our questions regarding data availability or other issues involving GIS

databases managed by his office. The Maine Department of Conservation provided

funding to assist in the purchase of the 1991 satellite data.

In our work on the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates that regularly breed in Maine, we

heavily relied upon the Breeding Bird Survey of the USGS Biological Resources

Division, the Maine Breeding Bird Atlas, and the Maine Amphibian and Reptile Atlas;

the efforts of hundreds of volunteers involved in these surveys is appreciated. People

who reviewed or provided information on terrestrial vertebrate species include: John

Albright, Linda Alverson, Dave Capen, Jim Connolly, Patrick Corr, Phillip deMaynadier,

Richard DeGraaf, Norm Famous, Lyman Feero, Curt Griffin, John Hagan, Dan Harrison,

Malcolm Hunter, Allen Hutchinson, Thomas Kunz, John Litvaitis, Judy Markowski,

Mark McCollough, Craig McLaughlin, Kim Morris, Anders Rhodin, Beth Schwartz,

Mike Sullivan, Peter Vickery, Ken Williams, and Mariko Yamasaki. Their input is

appreciated very much. Within this list, Mark McCollough should be highlighted for his

help with review of the vertebrate information and Beth Schwartz for help with the

heritage ranking of vertebrates. Help with testing predicted distribution of vertebrates was

provided by Ray Varney, Steve Oliveri, Jack Witham and the late Greg Sepik who kindly
vi

provided us with habitat information. Mac Hunter and Jack Witham provided survey

results for the Holt Research Forest.

Digitizing of the private and public conservation lands database was done by Ross

Bartlett and Catherine Hayden. Curt Griffin, Dana Slaymaker, and Kate Jones,

University of Massachusetts, and Dave Capen, University of Vermont, were responsible

for taking the aerial videography used in this project. Ross Bartlett and Tony Guay, MEGAP, checked roadside samples of the aerial videography to ensure correct interpretation,

and assembled the photo guidebooks to ensure consistent definition and identification of

cover types from the aerial videography. All interpretation of the videography was done

by Ross Bartlett, a long and tedious job that was done with care and dedication. Michelle

Therrien assisted in the testing of the cover map by interpreting aerial photographs of

large blocks of Maine’s landscape and comparing results to those obtained from the

satellite data. Christen Orlando and Dusty Perkins also assisted with Maine Gap in work

related to testing the cover map. We greatly appreciated the expertise and help of Arnold

Banner, Aram Calhoun, Andy Cutko, Sue Gawler, Tom Hodgman, Jerry Longcore, and

Wende Mahaney who reviewed our re-labeling of cover types from the National

Wetlands Inventory.

We thank the GAP projects that preceded us, all in the western USA, for blazing the trail

and setting tough standards. We would like to especially thank WY-GAP, whose final

report (Merrill et al. 1996) made our task of writing this report easier. Finally, we are

most grateful to Gary Donovan, Champion International Corporation, Mac Hunter,

University of Maine (UM), and George Matula, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries

and Wildlife, for reviewing this lengthy manuscript; and to Shirley Moulton, UM, who

provided the secretarial skills and support needed to make this report a reality.
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Acquisition dates of Landsat-TM imagery used in ME-GAP

by worldwide path/row reference system.......................................................................................10

Table 2. Area and percentage of Maine in the 37 vegetation and

land cover types mapped by ME-GAP, 1993.................................................................................18

Table 3. Map superclass (Anderson et al. 1976; Level II) error

matrix by pixel................................................................................................................................22

Table 4. Comparisons (% of pixels) of mapped superclasses to

aerial videography samples............................................................................................................22

Table 5. Comparisons (% of pixels) of aerial videography samples

to mapped superclasses .................................................................................................................22

Table 6. Forestlands class accuracy in number of pixels and percentages

(Totals and % Correct refer to all-class accuracy, not only Forestlands) .....................................23

Table 7. Comparisons (% of pixels) of mapped Forestlands classes to

aerial videography samples ...........................................................................................................23

Table 8. Comparisons (% of pixels) of aerial videography samples to

mapped Forestlands classes............................................................................................................23

Table 9. Major references used in ME-GAP to delineate ranges of terrestrial

vertebrates that regularly breed in Maine.......................................................................................28

Table 10. GIS grids and coverages used in animal species modeling process ............................31

Table 11. The number of species using each of the classes within the vegetation

and land cover map of ME-GAP....................................................................................................36

Table 12. Test site names, data type and available information used in

the accuracy assessment of ME-GAP vertebrate predictions.........................................................45

Table 13. Results of ME-GAP vertebrate accuracy assessment for areas

where checklist data were available ..............................................................................................47

Table 14. Results of ME-GAP vertebrate accuracy assessment for areas

where research data were available ...............................................................................................48

Table 15. Overall results of accuracy assessment of ME-GAP predicted

species distributions ......................................................................................................................49
viii

Table 16. Example designation of land management Categories used

in ME-GAP ...................................................................................................................................61

Table 17. Number of polygons, total area (ha), percent (%) of total area,

and percent (%) of lands in Maine by ownership ......................................................................63

Table 18. Percent (%) and size (km2 ) of land management Categories

by major ownerships in Maine, 199 ............................. 5 ............................................................65

Table 19. Area (km2) and percent (%) of five elevation ranges (m)

by land management Categorie ............................. s ...................................................................66

Table 20. Percent (%) and area (km2) of vegetation and land cover types

across major land ownershi ............................. p .........................................................................71

Table 21. Percent (%) and area (km2) of vegetation and land cover types

across land management Categorie .............................. s .............................................................72

Table 22. Percent (%) and area (km2) of vegetation and land cover types

within major land ownership ............................. s .......................................................................73

Table 23. Percent (%) and area (km2) of vegetation and land cover types

within land management Categorie ............................ s .............................................................74

Table 24. Conservation threshold criteria used to define protect/unprotected

as applied to endangered and threatened species listed by the Maine Department

of Inland Fisheries and Wildlif ........................... e ....................................................................76

Table 25. Percent (%) and area (km2) of the predicted distribution of Bicknell’s

Thrush in Maine by land management Categories and major land ownerships ....................80

Table 26. Comparison of habitats predicted to be used by Bicknell’s Thrush to

habitats available in Western Maine .........................................................................................81

Table 27. Percent (%) and area (km2) of predicted distribution of American Beaver

in Maine by land management Categories and major land ownership ......................... s ........82

Table 28. Distribution of habitats predicted to be used by American Beaver

by biophysical regions of Main ............................. e ...................................................................83

Table 29. Percent (%) and area (km2) of Essential Habitat for Bald Eagles

compared to habitats available statewid ............................. e ......................................................85

Table 30. Percent (%) and area (km2) of Essential Habitat for Bald Eagles

in Maine by biophysical regions and habitat type ........................... s .......................................86
ix

Table 31. Percent (%) and area (km2) of Essential Habitat for Bald Eagles

in Maine by major land ownerships ..............................................................................................87

Table 32. An example representational analysis based on statewide data

from ME-GAP ...............................................................................................................................91
x

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS

Figure 1. The distribution of Maine’s human population in 1990 as related

to the locations of the major towns, cities, and rivers (a); and changes in the

distribution of the human population, 1990-94 (b) .........................................................................6

Figure 2. The major biophysical regions of Maine as modified from Krohn,

Boone, and Painton (1999) .............................................................................................................7

Figure 3. Landsat-Thematic Mapper scene coverage for Maine ................................................11

Figure 4. Generalized locations of flight paths along which aerial videography

was collected during June (diagonal lines) and October (dashed lines), 1994 .............................13

Figure 5. Locations of USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps unavailable

in digital format at time of image processing for ME-GAP ..........................................................14

Figure 6. Predicted distribution of total vertebrate richness by hexagons ..................................38

Figure 7. Frequency distribution of total vertebrate richness by hexagons.................................39

Figure 8. Predicted vertebrate richness by taxonomic classes and hexagons .............................40

Figure 9. Frequency distribution of vertebrate richness by taxonomic classes

and hexagons .................................................................................................................................41

Figure 10. Locations and names of test sites used to assess the accuracy of

predicted species distributions from ME-GAP .............................................................................44

Figure 11. The number of bird species correctly modeled and the number

over-predicted (commission error) for checklist sites by LOORs .................................................51

Figure 12. The number of bird species correctly modeled and the number

over-predicted for research site by LOORs....................................................................................52

Figure 13. Frequency distribution of sizes (ha) of conservation and public lands

in Maine by major ownership type ................................................................................................62

Figure 14. Frequency distribution of the percent of vertebrates by the

percent of their Maine habitat in land management Categories 1 and 2 .......................................76

Figure 15. Frequency distribution of the total amount (ha) of predicted

habitats of vertebrate species breeding in Maine ..........................................................................77

Figure 16. Richness patterns of the 13 species of terrestrial vertebrates
xi

listed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife as

Threatened or Endangered ............................................................................................................79

Figure 17. Locations of Deer Wintering Areas mapped by the Maine

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in relation to the Wildlife

Management Districts ...................................................................................................................89

Figure 18. Percent (%) of Wildlife Management Districts (WMDs) in

mapped Deer Wintering Areas (A), and the percent of WMDs in conifer

forest as mapped by ME-GAP, 1993 ............................................................................................90

Map 1. Major watersheds of Maine showing topography and locations

of rivers, lakes, and inland wetlands ............................................................................................4a

Map 2. Vegetation and land cover of Maine, 1993 ...............................................................17a,b

Map 3. Predicted distributions of terrestrial vertebrates in Maine by

taxonomic classes ........................................................................................................................41a

Map 4. Species richness patterns of all vertebrates in Maine ....................................................42a

Map 5. Major land ownerships of Maine, 1995 ........................................................................63a

Map 6. Management status of lands in Maine, 1995 .................................................................64a

Predicted Distributions Maps for Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals of Maine (Links to 

Species Book 1)

Predicted Distributions Maps for Birds of Maine (Links to 

Species Book 2)
xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Descriptions of vegetation and land cover classes used

in ME-GAP ..............................................................................................................A1-1 thru A1-8

Appendix 2. Computer program used to convert the physiographic

classification of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory to the structural

habitats for ME-GAP ................................................................................................A2-1 thru A2-7

Appendix 3. Distribution of vegetation and land cover classes (km 2) by biophysical

regions of Maine, 1993.............................................................................................................. A3-1

Appendix 4. Experts who provided information regarding species

distributions and habitat relationships....................................................................... A4-1 and A4-2

Appendix 5. Example computer program used to create a prediction

distribution map for a species (i.e., Common Snapping Turtle)...............................A5-1 thru A5-7

Appendix 6. Results of comparisons between predicted occurrences and

known occurrences of vertebrates...........................................................................A6-1 thru A6-23

Appendix 7. Results of ME-GAP vertebrate accuracy assessment reported

by Likelihood of Occurrence Ranks..........................................................................A7-1 thru A7-5

Appendix 8. Federal, Heritage, and State rankings of terrestrial vertebrate

species, with areas (km2) in land management Categories 1 and 2...........................A8-1 thru A8-9

Appendix 9. Major land ownerships by biophysical regions of Maine, 1995 ........................ A9-1

Appendix 10. The quantity of vegetation and land cover types (km2 ) in

Maine stratified by major land ownerships and land management Categories...A10-1 thru A10-11

Appendix 11. The quantity of habitat (km2) predicted to be available

to each vertebrate species (n = 270) in ME-GAP, stratified by major

ownerships and land management Categories ....................................................A11-1 thru A11-78

Appendix 12. List of example GAP applications (Maine examples

under Statewide planning)....................................................................................................... A12-1

Business and nongovernment organizations..................................................... A12-1

County and city planning.................................................................................. A12-1

State uses .......................................................................................................... A12-2

Statewide planning............................................................................................ A12-3

Federal agency applications.............................................................................. A12-3
1

INTRODUCTION

We went by the Avenue Road, which is quite straight and very good,

northwestward toward Moosehead Lake, through more than a dozen flourishing towns,

with almost every one its academy, - not one of which, however, is on my General Atlas,

published, alas! in 1824; so much are they before the age, or I behind it!

The earth must have been considerably lighter to the shoulders of General Atlas then.

Thoreau - The Maine Woods, 1848

Organization of Report

This report is a summation of a scientific project. While we endeavor to make it understandable

for as general an audience as practicable, it will reflect the complexity of the project it describes.

A Glossary of Terms is provided to aid the reader in its understanding, and for those seeking a

detailed understanding of the subjects, the cited literature should be helpful. The organization of

this report follows the general chronology of project development, beginning with the production

of the individual data layers and concluding with analysis of the data. It diverges from standard

scientific reporting by embedding results and discussion sections within individual chapters.

This was done to allow the individual data products to stand on their own as testable hypotheses

and provide data users with a concise and complete report for each data and analysis product.

We begin with an overview of the Gap Analysis mission, concept, and limitations. We then

present a synopsis of how the current biodiversity condition of the project area came to be,

followed by land cover mapping, animal species distribution prediction, species richness, and

land stewardship mapping and categorization. Data development leads to the Analysis section

that reports on the status of the elements of biodiversity (natural community alliances and

terrestrial vertebrate species) for this state. Finally, we describe the management implications of

the analysis results and provide information on how to acquire and use the data.

GAP Mission

The mission of the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is to prevent conservation crises by providing

conservation assessments of animals and their habitats and to facilitate the application of this

information to land management activities.

This is accomplished through the following five objectives:

1) map actual land cover as closely as possible to the Alliance level (FGDC-VS, 1997).

2) map the predicted distribution of those terrestrial vertebrates that spend any important part

of their life history in the project area and for which adequate distributional habitats,

associations, and mapped habitat variables are available. Map other taxa as cooperative

opportunities allow.

3) document the representation of land cover types and animal species in areas managed for

the long-term maintenance of biodiversity.

4) make all GAP Project information available to the public and those charged with land use

research, policy, planning, and management.
2

5) build institutional cooperation in the application of this information to state and regional

management activities.

To meet these objectives, it is necessary that GAP be operated at the state level but maintain

consistency with national standards. Within the state, participation by a wide variety of

cooperators is necessary and desirable to ensure understanding and acceptance of the data and

forge relationships that will lead to cooperative conservation planning.

Gap Analysis Concept

GAP brings together the problem-solving capabilities of federal, state, and private scientists to

tackle the difficult issues of land cover mapping, vertebrate habitat characterization, assessment,

and biodiversity conservation at the state, regional, and national levels. The program seeks to

facilitate cooperative development and use of information. Throughout this report we use the

terms “GAP” to describe the national program, “GAP Project” to refer to an individual state or

regional project, and “gap analysis” to refer to the gap analysis process or methodology.

Much of the following discussion was taken verbatim from Edwards et al. (1995), Scott et al.

(1993), and Davis et al. (1995). The gap analysis process provides an overview of the

distribution and conservation status of several components of biodiversity. It uses the

distribution of actual vegetation and terrestrial vertebrates and, when available, invertebrate taxa.

Digital map overlays in a GIS are used to identify individual species, species-rich areas, and

vegetation types that are unrepresented or under-represented in existing management areas. It

functions as a preliminary step to the more detailed studies needed to establish actual boundaries

for potential biodiversity management areas. These data and results are then made available to

institutions as well as individual landowners and managers so that they may become more

effective stewards through more complete knowledge of the management status of these

elements of biodiversity. GAP, by focusing on higher levels of biological organization, is likely

to be both cheaper and more likely to succeed than conservation programs focused on single

species or populations (Scott et al. 1993).

Biodiversity inventories can be visualized as "filters" designed to capture elements of

biodiversity at various levels of organization. The filter concept has been applied by The Nature

Conservancy, which has established Natural Heritage Programs in all 50 states, most of which

are now operated by state government agencies. The Nature Conservancy employs a fine filter

of rare species inventory and protection and a coarse filter of community inventory and

protection (Jenkins 1985, Noss 1987). It is postulated that 85-90% of species can be protected

by the coarse filter, without having to inventory or plan reserves for those species individually.

A fine filter is then applied to the remaining species to ensure their protection. Gap analysis is a

coarse filter method.
3

The intuitively appealing idea of conserving most biodiversity by maintaining examples of all

natural community types has never been applied, although numerous approaches to the spatial

identification of biodiversity have been described (e.g., Kirkpatrick 1983, Margules et al. 1988,

Pressey and Nicholls 1989, and Pressey et al. 1993). Furthermore, the spatial scale at which

organisms use the environment differs tremendously among species and depends on body size,

food habits, mobility, and other factors. Hence, no coarse filter will be a complete assessment of

biodiversity protection status and needs. However, species that fall through the pores of the

coarse filter, such as narrow endemics and wide-ranging mammals, can be captured by the safety

net of the fine filter. Community-level (coarse-filter) protection is a complement to, not a

substitute for, protection of individual rare species.

Gap analysis is essentially an expanded coarse-filter approach (Noss 1987) to biodiversity

protection. The vegetation types mapped in GAP serve directly as a coarse filter, the goal being

to assure adequate representation of all types in biodiversity management areas. Landscapes

with great vegetation diversity often are those with high edaphic variety or topographic relief.

When elevational diversity is very great, a nearly complete spectrum of vegetation types known

from a biological region may occur within a relatively small area. Such areas provide habitat for

many species, including those that depend on multiple habitat types to meet life history needs

(Diamond 1986, Noss 1987). By using landscape-sized samples (Forman and Godron 1986,

Forman 1995) as an expanded coarse filter, gap analysis searches for and identifies biological

regions where unprotected or under-represented vegetation types and animal species occur.

A second filter uses combined species distribution information to identify a set of areas in which

all, or nearly all, mapped species are represented. There is a major difference between

identifying the richest areas in a region (many of which are likely to be neighbors and share

essentially the same list of species) and identifying areas in which all species are represented.

The latter task is most efficiently accomplished by selecting areas whose species lists are most

different or complementary. Areas with different environments tend to also have the most

different species lists for a variety of taxa. As a result, a set of areas with complementary sets of

species for one higher taxon (e.g., mammals) often will also do a good job representing most

species of other higher taxa (e.g., trees, butterflies). Species with large home ranges, such as

large carnivores, or species with very local distributions may require individual attention.

Additional data layers can be used for a more holistic conservation evaluation. These include

indicators of stress or risk (e.g., human population growth, road density, rate of habitat

fragmentation, distribution of pollutants) and the locations of habitat corridors between wildlands

that allow for natural movements of wide-ranging animals and the migration of species in

response to climate change. These more detailed analyses were not part of this project, but are

areas of research that GAP as a national program is pursuing.

General Limitations

Limitations must be recognized so that additional studies can be implemented to supplement

GAP. The following are general project limitations; specific limitations for the data are described

in the sections that describe them:

1. GAP data are derived from remote sensing and modeling to make general assessments about

conservation status. Any decisions based on the data must be supported by ground-truthing and

more detailed analyses.
4

2. GAP is not a substitute for threatened and endangered species listing and recovery efforts. A

primary argument in favor of gap analysis is that it is proactive: it seeks to recognize and manage

sites of high biodiversity value for the long-term maintenance of populations of native species

and natural ecosystems before individual species and plant communities become critically rare.

Thus, it should help to reduce the rate at which species require listing as threatened or

endangered. Those species that are already greatly imperiled, however, still require individual

efforts to assure their recovery.

3. GAP data products and assessments represent a snapshot in time generally representing the

date of the satellite imagery. Updates are planned on a 5-10 year cycle, but users of the data

must be aware of the static nature of the products.

4. GAP is not a substitute for a thorough national biological inventory. As a response to rapid

habitat loss, gap analysis provides a quick assessment of the distribution of vegetation and

associated species before they are lost, and provides focus and direction for local, regional, and

national efforts to maintain biodiversity. The process of improving knowledge in systematics,

taxonomy, and species distributions is lengthy and expensive. That process must be continued

and expedited, however, in order to provide the detailed information needed for a comprehensive

assessment of our nation's biodiversity. Vegetation and species distribution maps developed for

GAP can be used to make such surveys more cost-effective by stratifying sampling areas

according to expected variation in biological attributes.

Study Area

The project study area was the entire state of Maine (Map 1). The abundance, composition, and

distribution of plants and animals in Maine are affected by a complex sets of interactions within

and between abiotic and biotic factors. Interactions, now and in the past, among the geology,

climate, and human use of Maine and the state’s total set of animal and plant life forged the

landscape patterns in biodiversity we see today.

Maine’s southeastern side is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, which ameliorates the climate

adjacent to the coastline as well as providing an assortment of estuarine and marine habitats.

Inland, a predominant feature of the Maine landscape is water, both running (i.e., brooks,

streams, and rivers) and standing (i.e., ponds, lakes, and a variety of wetlands) (Map 1). This

well-watered landscape is the result of the state’s glacial history (Kendall 1993) as well as its

climate (Forbes 1946, Boone 1997).

Glaciers retreated from what is now Maine from 14,000 to 9,000 years ago. As the glaciers

retreated, the landscape became vegetated, passing along a continuum of tundra to woodland to

forests (Davis and Jacobson 1985). Vegetative assemblages continually changed, with past

assemblages not only differing from each other, but also dissimilar to modern forest types

(Jacobson et al. 1987). Prior to European settlement, disturbance was infrequent and mostly

local, and thus the forests were largely in an uneven-aged climax state. In northcentral Maine, an

estimated 59% of the forest was in mature climax (i.e., stands with trees >150 years old); 27%

of the forest was in an all-aged climax with some trees >300 years old (Lorimer 1977).

(“see Map 1”)

5

Indians apparently affected vegetation only locally, but some 200 years after European

settlement came a low in forestland acreage as the amount of land committed to agriculture

peaked in the late 1800s (Black 1950). Agricultural development occurred from the coast and

proceeded up the river valleys, spreading throughout southern and central Maine, and into the St.

John River Valley in northeastern Maine along the Canada/USA border. The peak of agriculture

in Maine occurred in approximately 1880 when 2.7 million ha (6.6 million ac) of land were in

farmlands, mostly in the central and southern parts of the state. Today, there are fewer than

364,500 ha (900,000 ac) with the most productive farms located in northeastern Maine (US

Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture). Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) farming, where

fields are periodically burned to stimulate berry production, occurs over extensive areas in

eastern Maine, and to a lesser extent south along the coast (Yarborough 1996). Statewide,

however, agricultural lands have largely reverted to forests and today Maine is the most

extensively forested state in the USA.

Currently, most of the Maine forest is in a second or third rotation resulting in much of the

state’s forestlands being comprised of nonmature, shade-intolerant tree species (Griffith and

Alerich 1996). Plant assemblages in Maine, due to the state’s glacial and land use histories, tend

to occur in relatively small and highly interspersed patches. Due to historical patterns of land

settlement and ownership, the state’s human population is concentrated in southern Maine and

along the coast (Figure 1a). As elsewhere in the USA, humans are redistributing themselves

from the cities and larger towns into adjacent rural areas (Figure 1b; O’Hara 1997).

Krohn et al. (1999) used GIS and cluster analyses to divide Maine into thirteen relatively

homogeneous regions based on two measures of geomorphology, three climate variables, and

two measures of species richness (i.e., woody plants and terrestrial vertebrates). For the

purposes of this report, the thirteen biophysical regions were simplified into five regions to

condense results (Figure 2). For details on the climatic, geomorphic, and biological

characteristics of these regions, see Krohn et al. (1999).
Figure 1. The distribution of Maine's 

human populations in 1990 as related 

to the locations of the major towns, 

cities, and rivers (a); and changes in 

the distribution of the human 

population, 1990-94 (b). Human 

population data from the US Bureau 

of Census.
Figure 2. The major biophysical regions of Maine as modified from Krohn et al. (In Press).

Topographical data from the US Geological Survey.
8

LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING

The prevailing wood seemed to be spruce, fir, birch, and rock-maple.

You could easily distinguish the hard wood from the soft,

or “ black growth,” as it is called, at a great distance, -

the former being smooth, round-topped, and light green,

with a bowery and cultivated look.

Thoreau - The Maine Woods, 1848

Introduction

Mapping natural land cover requires a higher level of effort than the development of data for

animal species, agency ownership, or land management, yet it is no more important for gap

analysis than any other data layer. Generally, the mapping of land cover is done by adopting or

developing a land cover classification system, delineating areas of relative homogeneity (basic

cartographic “objects”), then labeling these areas using categories defined by the classification

system. More detailed attributes of the individual areas are added as more information becomes

available, and a process of validating both polygon pattern and labels is applied for editing and

revising the map. This is done in an iterative fashion, with the results from one step causing reevaluation of results from a previous step. Finally, an assessment of the overall accuracy of the

data is conducted. The final assessment of accuracy will show where improvements should be

made in the next update (Stoms et al. 1994).

In its “coarse filter” approach to conservation biology (e.g., Jenkins 1985, Noss 1987), gap

analysis relies on maps of dominant natural land cover types as the most fundamental spatial

component of the analysis (Scott et al. 1993) for terrestrial environments. For the purposes of

GAP, most of the land surface of interest (natural) can be characterized by its dominant

vegetation.

Vegetation patterns are an integrated reflection of the biological, chemical, and physical factors

that shape the environment of a given land area (Whittaker 1965). They also are determinants

for overall biological diversity patterns (Franklin 1993, Levin 1981), and they can be used as a

currency for habitat types in conservation evaluations (Specht 1975, Austin 1991). As such,

dominant vegetation types need to be recognized over their entire ranges of distribution

(Bourgeron et al. 1994) for beta-scale analysis (sensu Whittaker 1960, 1977). These patterns

cannot be acceptably mapped from any single source of remotely sensed imagery; therefore,

ancillary data, previous maps, and field surveys are used. The central concept is that the

physiognomic and floristic characteristics of vegetation (and, in the absence of vegetation, other

physical structures) across the land surface can be used to define biologically meaningful

biogeographic patterns. There may be considerable variation in the floristics of subcanopy

vegetation layers (community association) that are not resolved when mapping at the level of

dominant canopy vegetation types (alliance), and there is a need to address this part of the

diversity of nature. As information accumulates from field studies on patterns of variation in

understory layers, it can be attributed to the mapped units of alliances.
9

Land Cover Classification

Land cover classifications must rely on specified attributes, such as the structural features of

plants, their floristic composition, or environmental conditions, to consistently differentiate

categories (Küchler and Zonneveld 1988). The criteria for a land cover classification system for

GAP are: (a) an ability to distinguish areas of different actual dominant vegetation; (b) a utility

for modeling animal species habitats; (c) a suitability for use within and among biogeographic

regions; (d) an applicability to Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery for both rendering a

base map and from which to extract basic patterns (GAP relies on a wide array of information

sources, TM offers a convenient meso-scale base map in addition to being one source of actual

land cover information); (e) a framework that can interface with classification systems used by

other organizations and nations to the greatest extent possible; and (f) a capability to fit, both

categorically and spatially, with classifications of other themes such as agricultural and

developed environments.

For GAP, the system that fits best is referred to as the National Vegetation Classification System

(NVCS) (FGDC 1997). The origin of this system was referred to as the UNESCO/TNC system

(Lins and Kleckner, 1996) because it is based on the structural characteristics of vegetation

derived by Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974), adopted by the United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 1973) and later modified for application to the

United States by Driscoll et al. (1983, 1984). The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage

Network (Grossman et al. 1994) have been improving upon this system in recent years with

partial funding supplied by GAP. The basic assumptions and definitions for this system have

been described by Jennings (1993).

For ME-GAP, we developed a classification scheme (Appendix 1) that addressed the state’s

unique complex of vegetation assemblages and land uses, focusing on what was needed to apply

species-habitat models (Boone and Krohn 1998a,b). Our classification scheme is a balance

between those habitat types required to apply wildlife-habitat models for terrestrial vertebrates in

Maine and those types we felt able to delineate from the available data. Our classification

system is based on Jennings (1993) which in turn uses Cowardin et al. (1979) for wetlands. The

highest levels of our classification, and the nomenclature for nonvegetated and highly disturbed

environments, come from Anderson et al. (1976). Our habitat and land cover classes readily

cross-walk with the types being used by other Gap Analysis Projects in the northeastern states.

Mapping Standards

For ME-GAP, we maintained Landsat TM’s original cell resolution of 30 x 30 m (900 m2)

throughout the classification process. All scenes were rectified with less than 15 meter residual

mean errors, thereby limiting the spatial errors to less than one-half pixel. A target thematic

(classification) accuracy was set at 80% for major vegetation and land cover classes.
10

Methods

Our methods consisted of a hybrid of supervised and unsupervised classification techniques

(Lillesand and Kiefer 1994) of TM imagery (Hepinstall et al., 1999). Polygons of known

cover type digitized from aerial videography flown in 1994 were used as training sites and for

map update and final accuracy testing (Krohn et al. 1995). Along with TM imagery, we used US

Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps to delineate 37 different

vegetation and land cover types. The map boundary was determined using 1:24,000 scale

township map from Maine Office of GIS. A 10 km buffer was maintained into New Hampshire

for state edge-matching as well as along the Atlantic Ocean beyond the furthest offshore islands

present in the township map.

The Land Cover Classification

Our initial classification scheme had to be collapsed, as we were unable to distinguish some

classes. For example, we initially separated early and late regeneration into hardwood,

softwood, and mixed, but were unable to distinguish the variation throughout Maine because of

differences in the acquisition dates of TM scenes. Our final classification contains 37 classes, 18

derived in part from re-grouped NWI types (Appendix 1). The method used to convert the

physiographic classes of the NWI to the vegetation classes needed for ME-GAP is documented

in Appendix 2.

Imagery and Ancillary Data

A total of 8 full TM scenes, and one partial TM scene, were required to obtain statewide

coverage (Figure 3). Two years (1991 and 1993) of statewide imagery were obtained with

cooperation from the Maine Department of Conservation and the Multi-Resolution Land

Characteristics program (Table 1). Imagery from 1991 was geo-referenced (rectified) into

Clarke 1866 Spheroid, NAD27 datum, and Universal Transverse Mercator projection with 30-

meter pixel resolution. Imagery from 1993 was registered to the 1991 imagery.

Table 1. Acquisition dates of Landsat-TM imagery used in ME-GAP by worldwide path/row

reference system.

Path

Row 12 11 10

27 06/07/91 8/16/90 NA

09/16/93 10/11/93

28 06/07/91 06/16/91 NA

0916/93 10/11/93

29 06/07/91 07/02/91 06/25/91

09/16/93 10/11/93 10/20/93

30 06/07/91 07/18/91 NA

06/12/93 10/11/93
Figure 3. Landsat-Thematic Mapper (TM) scene coverage for Maine.

Numbers refer to the path and row of the TM imagery (see Table 1 for dates of imagery).
12

Samples for supervised classification training sites, interim map assessment, and final accuracy

assessment were derived from statewide aerial videography flown in June and October 1994. The

aerial videography transects were flown between June 9-23 (15 transects, 24 km apart, parallel to

the Atlantic coast) and between October 4-12 (18 transects, east/west, 27 km apart) (Figure 4).

To approximate plant phenology, spring transects started in the south and progressed north

whereas fall flights started in northern Maine and worked south. The videography equipment was

described by Slaymaker et al. (1996).

Successful use of the aerial videography in training TM data required that we knew the relations

between (1) the vegetation on the ground and the aerial videography, and (2) the videography

and the TM data as displayed on a computer screen. Thus, a roadside sample of the vegetation

types needed for ME-GAP were printed from the videography and visited on the ground.

Specifically, in the summer of 1995, 216 vegetation types were field verified at 120 roadside

sites across Maine. While the resolution of the aerial videography was inadequate for identifying

all plant communities, it was adequate for identifying the vegetation types of interest (Bartlett et

al. 1995). Once the relationships between the ground and videography were determined, the

process of relating what we could see on the videography and in the TM data was relatively

straightforward.

Approximately 11 million wide angle (210 ha coverage) and zoom (0.09 ha coverage) images

were available from the videography for use in training TM data and testing of the resulting map.

Homogeneous areas were identified on the videography and corresponding TM scene, delineated

into a polygon file and labeled by type at one minute intervals along the videography flight lines.

Ancillary data sources included aerial videography, NWI maps, wetland polygons from the

USGS Land Use/Land Cover Digital Analysis (LUDA) database, the USGS 1:100,000 scale

Digital Line Graphs (DLG) for the transportation network and urban areas, and point locations

for blueberry fields and hay fields. Blueberry fields are burnt on alternate year schedules,

sometimes in the fall and other times in the spring. Thus, this type can exhibit many spectral

signatures resulting in confusion with other types (e.g., abandoned farmland). Given the

importance of blueberry and other brushland habitats to wildlife, we needed additional data to

accurately identify and map abandoned farmland, blueberry fields, and hayfields. In July and

August of 1994 we had a person drive dirt and paved roads in eastern Maine. The locations of

all fields were noted and classified as to abandoned, blueberry, or hay. A total of 796 areas were

identified and mapped. Of these, 335 were classified as blueberry fields, 416 as hayfields, and

45 as abandoned farmlands.

Digital NWI maps were available for most of Maine (Figure 5) and these were used to delineate

wetland areas. Digital NWI maps were obtained directly from the USFWS’s web site

(http://www.nwi.fws.gov/). Approximately 88% of Maine (628 out of 709 1:24,000 USGS

quadrangles) was covered by the available NWI maps in digital form. (We had complete state

coverage of hard copy NWI maps). Ninety-five percent (n = 744) of the aerial photographs used

in the creation of the Maine NWI maps were taken in 1983-86 (range: 1973-1987), with 67% of

the photos taken in May (range: March-November). Cross-walking the NWI’s physiographic

(i.e., wetland landscape location and structure) classification to the ME-GAP vegetation types

was tedious and accomplished (Appendix 2) only after consultation with biologists familiar with

both Maine wetlands and the NWI classification (see Acknowledgments).
Figure 4. Generalized locations of flight paths along whic

aerial videography was collected during June (diagonal lines)

and October (dashed lines), 1994.
Figure 5. Locations of USFWS National Wetlands

Inventory maps unavailable in digital format at time of

image processing for ME-GAP (shaded areas indicate

missing digital data).
15

Land Cover Map Development

Ten-band image files were created from the 1991 and 1993 imagery. A radiometrically

corrected statewide mosaic of TM bands 3, 4, and 5 was available for 1991 whereas all six

nonthermal TM bands were available on a scene-by-scene basis for 1993 imagery. Five themes

were used from each year: TM bands 3, 4, 5, and normalized 4/5 and 4/3 ratios for 1991;

principal components 1, 2, and 3; and normalized 4/5 and 4/3 ratios for 1993. Principal

components analysis was not run on 1991 imagery because only TM bands 3, 4, and 5 were

available. The first three principal components for the 1993 data represented 97 percent of the

overall variability of the six original bands. The two ratios chosen for each date have been used

in vegetation and land cover change detection studies and were useful in discriminating seasonal

and annual variation in our data sets (Tucker 1979, Rock et al. 1986, Florella and Ripple 1993,

Sader 1989, Sader et al.1989, Sader 1990).

TM scenes were, by date, cloud-masked and a separate five-band file created from the

corresponding cloud-free date. Only one area contained clouds on both dates and this was in the

overlap area with New Hampshire and will therefore be filled in by data from the VT/NH-GAP.

The cloud area images were classified into 25 to 50 classes using an unsupervised approach,

matched with the 10-band supervised classification, and merged into the final scene mosaic.

Statewide classification proceeded on a TM scene-by-scene basis, thereby limiting the effects

associated with radiometric scene differences from different acquisition dates. For each scene,

the 10-band image was classified using 25 percent of the interpreted videography polygons as

training sites in a supervised classification. For each type the spectral variability of the training

sites were evaluated to ensure that they were representative. Confused spectral signatures were

stratified, masked out from the 10-band imagery, and re-classified into 50 clusters using an

unsupervised approach. Unsupervised classifications of the 10-band image were also performed

and used as a comparison to the supervised approach.

Special Feature Mapping

Spectral confusion occurred among some types, requiring ancillary GIS data to differentiate

these classes. Specific classes that were confused include (1) plowed fields, recent clear cuts,

and residential/urban areas; (2) early regeneration, scrub wetlands, and blueberry fields; (3) and

different stages of regeneration versus partially harvested areas.

For the portions of the state where NWI maps were unavailable in digital form, wetlands were

classified using a supervised procedure with additional training samples obtained from the aerial

videography and the paper NWI maps (Hepinstall et al., 1999). Because we expected to

receive the complete set of digital NWI maps before the completion of ME-GAP, we

underestimated the number and area of wetlands in the above classification procedure. Such

underestimating allows the final product to easily be updated when new digital data become

available without high levels of commission error.
16

Point locations for blueberry and hay fields, collected in 1994, were used to discriminate

agricultural fields from early regeneration or residential areas. Blueberry fields were also

stratified out for two scenes (Path 10 Row 29 and Path 11 Row 29) to conduct a class-specific

supervised classification using training sites based on blueberry field locations obtained by

roadside surveys. Classes that appeared to capture the majority of known blueberry fields were

incorporated into each scene mosaic.

Urban and residential areas were masked out using the DLG transportation vector coverage, and

LUDA urban and residential polygons that had been buffered from 25 to100 meters depending

on the size of the road. These images were classified into 50 classes using an unsupervised

approach. Classes were evaluated and those classes representing any of our four developed lands

classes were added to the final scene classification.

Once each scene classification was completed, all scenes were assembled into a statewide map.

Slight differences in scene classifications resulted in class seams across scene boundaries. To

minimize this effect, class assignments were adjusted in the original scene classifications

(Hepinstall et al., 1999, for details).

Once the statewide classification was complete and all TM scenes were assembled together,

several majority filters were used to screen out artifacts of the classification and edge-matching

process. For example, a majority filter was applied to blueberry fields and the class extent for

blueberry fields was limited to the extent of Maine known to grow blueberries (Yarborough

1996).

After applying filters to correct for artifacts in image pre-processing, we applied the program,

MegaMerge, version 52 (http://www.cyberport.net/glacier/gis/), with a minimum output polygon

size of 9 pixels (0.81 ha), although still maintaining the cell resolution of 30 m.

Edge-Matching Polygons

Maine borders only one state, New Hampshire, where gap analysis for is being conducted by

personnel of the University of Vermont, with Dr. D. Capen as principal investigator. Several

meetings between ME-GAP and VT/NH-GAP have taken place to ensure data layers edgematch. We have provided VT/NH-GAP with that portion of the ME-GAP vegetation and land

cover map covering 10 km on each site of the ME-NH border. Because ME-GAP used more

classes than VT/NH-GAP, Dr. Capen will fit the polygons from Maine into those for New

Hampshire.

Results

The statewide results of our mapping effort (Map 2) matched well with estimates from the 1995

USDA Forest Service study (Griffith and Alerich 1996). Their study estimated that 71,588 km2

of Maine was forested, including forested wetlands. This compares well to our estimate of

70,680 km2. Estimates of nonforested freshwater wetlands were also close between Forest

Service and our estimates (1,363 versus 1,380 km2, respectively). We did differ greatly between
17

“(see Habitat Map Key on Odd page, and Map 2 on Even page)”

our estimates of agricultural lands (3,402 USFS versus 6,169 km2 ME-GAP) and developed

lands (1,975 USFS versus 1,066 km2 ME-GAP). These differences are partially accounted for

by the different classification schemes used: the Forest Service includes a single-family housing

class that would be a combination of low-density residential or grasslands in the ME-GAP

classification scheme. In ME-GAP, areas that are mostly lawns were classified as grasslands

rather than as low-density residential.

As expected, forested types dominate the state (Table 2). Because the final NWI digital maps

were unavailable before completing ME-GAP, we underestimated wetlands in the areas where

digital NWI maps were unavailable (Figure 5) so that the digital NWI could be readily added at a

later date. Distribution of vegetation and land cover types by biophysical regions are presented

in Appendix 3.


18

Table 2. Area and percentage of Maine in the 37 vegetation and land cover types mapped by

ME-GAP, 1993.

Area %

Mapped (km2

) of State Area

Agricultural Lands 6,168.6 7.29

Abandoned Field 201.2 0.24

Blueberry Field 133.6 0.16

Grasslands 4,719.2 5.58

Crops/Ground 1,114.6 1.32

Forestlands 64,482.9 76.19

Clearcut 1,272.3 1.50

Early Regeneration 5,369.6 6.34

Late Regeneration 2,925.6 3.46

Light Partial Cut 1,137.5 1.34

Heavy Partial Cut 1,536.1 1.81

Deciduous 12,818.7 15.15

Deciduous/coniferous 13,486.4 15.94

Coniferous/deciduous 18,020.3 21.29

Coniferous 7,916.6 9.35

Water & Wetlands 12,849.9 9.69

Deciduous Forested 736.1 0.87

Coniferous Forested 3,891.0 4.60

Dead-forest 27.9 0.03

Deciduous Scrub-shrub 1,384.1 1.64

Coniferous Scrub-shrub 156.3 0.18

Dead Scrub-shrub 1.2 0.00

Fresh Aquatic Bed 1.4 0.00

Fresh Emergent 718.8 0.85

Peatland 472.8 0.56

Wet Meadow 170.0 0.20

Salt Aquatic Bed 196.9 0.23

Salt Emergent 80.2 0.09

Mudflat 236.1 0.28

Sand Shore 31.5 0.04

Gravel Shore 37.3 0.04

Rock Shore 63.5 0.08

Shallow Water 146.7 0.17

Open Water 4,498.2 5.31

Developed Lands 1,065.9 1.23

Sparse Residential 690.6 0.82

Dense Residential 352.2 0.42

Urban/Industrial 14.9 0.02

Highways/Runways 8.2 0.01

Other 65.5 0.08

Alpine Tundra 20.6 0.02

Exposed Rock/Talus 44.9 0.05

Total 84,630.0 100.00
19

Accuracy Assessment

Introduction

GAP land cover maps are primarily compiled to answer the fundamental question in gap

analysis: what is the current distribution and management status of the nation's major natural

vegetation and land cover types? In addition to providing a measure of overall reliability of the

land cover map (Congalton 1991, Edwards et al. 1998) for state projects, the assessment also

identifies which general classes or which regions of the map do not meet the accuracy objectives

for the Gap Analysis Program. Thus the assessment identifies where additional effort will be

required when the map is updated.

The purpose of accuracy assessment is to allow a potential user to determine the map's "fitness

for use" for their application. It is impossible for the original cartographer to anticipate all future

applications of a land cover map, so the assessment should provide enough information for the

user to evaluate fitness for their unique purpose. This can be described as the degree to which the

data quality characteristics collectively suit an intended application. The information reported

includes details on the database's spatial, thematic, and temporal characteristics and their

accuracy.

Assessment data are valuable for purposes beyond their immediate application to estimating

accuracy of a land cover map. The reference data is therefore made available to other agencies

and organizations for use in their own land cover characterization and map accuracy assessments

(see Data Availability). The data set will also serve as an important training data source for later

updates.

Even though we have reached an endpoint in the mapping process where products are made

available to others, the gap analysis process should be considered dynamic. We envision that

maps will be refined and updated on a regular schedule. The assessment data will be used to

refine GAP maps iteratively by identifying where the land cover map is inaccurate and where

more effort is required to bring the maps up to accuracy standards applicable to other projects

(e.g., fine scale habitat studies). In addition, the field sampling may identify new classes that

were not identified at all during the initial mapping process. Overall, we believe that the

vegetation and land cover map created is adequate for its designed purpose.

Methods

Aerial videography flown in 1994 was used for preliminary map assessment and final accuracy

assessment (Figure 4). Homogeneous areas of the vegetation and cover type were identified on

both the wide angle and zoom videography. The corresponding area was located on the TM

imagery and on-screen digitizing was used to delineate and type the areas (for details, see

Hepinstall et al., 1999).

The preliminary statewide map was tested for class accuracy using approximately 35 percent of

the aerial videography polygons not used for supervised classification training sites (n = 1,231;

mean = 66 polygons per class). Modifications to the original scene classifications were done

according to the above assessment.
20

The accuracy assessment for the final map was done using the videography polygons not used as

input for the supervised classification procedures (n = 2,112; mean of 124 polygons per class)

(Congalton 1991, Edwards et al. 1998). The accuracy of all wetland classes was estimated as a

single class because the classification scheme used in developing the videography polygons

differed greatly from the final wetland classification based on re-grouping NWI wetland types.

Results

Although we use the term “accuracy assessment”, it should be noted that the video interpretation

used as the reference or “truth” is likely not 100% correct, therefore our analysis is really a test

of agreement between methods. However, for many years resource managers in the forest

ground truth.

Classification accuracy tables are created through an error matrix where reference classes

(“ground truth”) are in columns, and map classes are in rows. The overall map accuracy is

calculated by adding the values along the matrix diagonal and dividing by the reference total.

All non-diagonal entries are errors and can be grouped into errors of omission (areas that should

have been classified as one class but were classified as another: column errors) or errors of

commission (areas that were classified as one class but were really another class: row errors).

Producer accuracy is the percent correct (diagonal) divided by the column (reference data) total.

User accuracy is the percent correct (diagonal) divided by the row (map) total (Congalton 1991).

Accuracy assessments are reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5 by superclasses (Agricultural lands;

Developed lands; Forestlands; and Wetlands). Overall map accuracy for superclasses is high

(88.1%) indicating that at the lowest level of class resolution, our map has high agreement with

the interpreted videography. Another measure of agreement which attempts to correct for chance

agreement, termed kappa or KHAT (Lillesand and Kiefer 1994), had a high value as well (71%).

Classes making up the majority of the state consistently had high (greater than 75%) overall

accuracy than less predominant types (Table 3). Class confusion was as expected, especially

between Forestlands and Wetlands. The conservative estimate of wetlands in the areas of our

map where we did not have digital NWI maps shows up as a large number of wetland pixels in

the videography being classified as forestlands (a 24.8% omission error). The large wetland

commission error (35.5%) may indicate a misinterpretation of videography (i.e., forested

wetlands missed in video interpretation) rather than errors in the NWI classification. Confusion

between Agriculture and Forestlands occurs primarily due to class confusion between low

biomass forestland (Clearcut, Early Regeneration, and Heavy Partial Cut) and the low biomass of

agricultural lands. Confusion of areas classified as Agricultural Lands in the map and Developed

Lands in the videography arise from differences in visual interpretation of the cut-off between

Low Density Residential and Grasslands.
21

Accuracy assessments for a 4 class grouping of the Forestland classes (Low Biomass

regenerating forest including Clearcut, Early Regeneration, and Heavy Partial Cut; Deciduous

Forest; Mixed Forest including both mixed forest categories, Late Regenerating Forest, and Light

Partial Cut; and Coniferous Forest) are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8. The Forestland

breakdown is helpful in understanding the within-superclass confusion of Forestlands, Maine’s

major land cover type. Class confusion among forest types is higher than desired, but all

confusions are expected (e.g., Mixed Forest is confused with Deciduous or Coniferous Forest;

Deciduous Forest is confused with Mixed Forest, but not Coniferous Forest and visa versa; Low

Biomass Forest is confused with Mixed Forest). Individual class accuracies are reported and

discussed in Hepinstall et al. (1999).
22

Table 3. Map superclass (Anderson et al. 1976; Level II) error matrix by pixel (diagonal

elements represent agreement; off-diagonal elements represent errors).

Map Videography % Class as a

Ag. Developed Forestlands Wetlands Other Total Correct % of State

Agricultural Lands 3,801 231 631 125 66 4,854 78.31 7.29

Developed Lands 124 492 56 0 0 672 73.21 1.26

Forestlands 705 88 28,887 1,044 1 30,725 94.02 76.19

Wetlands 112 14 1,683 3,045 19 4,873 62.49 9.69

Other 0 0 18 0 138 156 88.46 0.08

Total 4,742 825 31,275 4,214 224 41,280

% Correct 80.16 59.64 92.36 72.26 61.61

Table 4. Comparisons (% of pixels) of mapped superclasses to aerial videography samples

(producer accuracy = diagonal; commission errors = off-diagonal cells).

Map Videography %

 of State

SE(%) of

Accuracy

Ag Developed Forestlands Wetlands Other State N Sampled Estimate

Agricultural 78.31 4.76 13.00 2.58 1.36 4,854 0.71 0.59

Developed 18.45 73.21 8.33 0.00 0.00 672 0.57 1.71

Forestlands 2.29 0.29 94.02 3.40 0.00 30,725 0.43 0.14

Wetlands 2.30 0.29 34.54 62.49 0.39 4,873 0.34 0.69

Other 0.00 0.00 11.54 0.00 88.46 156 2.14 2.56

Total 88.10 41,280 0.44 0.16

Table 5. Comparisons (% of pixels) of aerial videography samples to mapped superclasses (user

accuracy = diagonal; omission errors = off-diagonal cells).

Map Videography

Agriculture Developed Forestlands Wetlands Other

Agricultural 80.16 28.00 2.02 2.97 29.46

Developed 2.61 59.64 0.18 0.00 0.00

Forestlands 14.87 10.67 92.36 24.77 0.45

Wetlands 2.36 1.70 5.38 72.26 8.48

Other 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 61.61

N 4,742 825 31,275 4,214 224
23

Table 6. Forestlands class accuracy in number of pixels and percentages. (Totals and % Correct

refer to all-class accuracy, not only Forestlands).

Map Videography

Low Decid. Mixed Conif. % Class as a

Biomassa Forest Forest Forest Totals Correct % of State

Regen. Forest: Low Biomass 4,499 103 521 54 5,591 80.47 9.66

Deciduous Forest 193 6,060 1,264 13 7,782 77.87 15.15

Mixed Forest 1,986 2,008 5,507 1,880 12,161 45.28 42.03

Coniferous Forest 84 40 824 3,851 5,191 74.19 9.35

Totals 7,374 8,389 8,714 6,798 41,280

Percent Correct 61.01 72.24 63.20 56.65

a

 - defined as Clearcut, Early Regeneration, and Heavy Partial Cuts.

Table 7. Comparisons (% of pixels) of mapped Forestlands classes to aerial videography

samples (producer accuracy = diagonal; commission errors = off-diagonal cells).

Map Videography % SE(%) of

Low Deciduous Mixed Coniferous of State Accuracy

Biomassa Forest Forest Forest N Sampled Estimate

Regen. Forest.: Low Biomass 80.47 1.84 9.32 0.97 5,591 0.62 0.53

Deciduous Forest 2.48 77.87 16.24 0.17 7,782 0.55 0.47

Mixed Forest 16.33 16.51 45.28 15.46 12,161 0.31 0.45

Coniferous Forest 1.62 0.77 15.87 74.19 5,191 0.59 0.61

a

 - defined as Clearcut, Early Regeneration, and Heavy Partial Cuts.

Table 8. Comparisons (% of pixels) of aerial videography samples to mapped Forestlands

classes superclasses (user accuracy = diagonal; omission errors = off-diagonal cells).

Map Videography

Low Deciduous Mixed Coniferous

Biomassa Forest Forest Forest

Regen. Forest: Low Biomass 61.01 1.23 5.98 0.79

Deciduous Forest 2.62 72.24 14.51 0.19

Mixed Forest 26.93 23.94 63.20 27.66

Coniferous Forest 1.14 0.48 9.46 56.65

N 7,374 8,389 8,714 6,798

a

 - defined as Clearcut, Early Regeneration, and Heavy Partial Cuts.
24

Limitations and Discussion

We note that our accuracy assessment is really an agreement assessment, not an absolute

assessment of the vegetation and land cover map relative to ground-truth. Specifically, we

quantified two types of agreements by comparing the following: (1) aerial videography to the

land cover map, and (2) the land cover map to the videography. In both comparisons, the aerial

videography was considered to represent ground-truth. If in fact the videography was an

absolute measure of what was on the ground, then a comparison of random sets of data from the

spring and fall videography should yield the same results (i.e., the composition of types on the

ground does not change). In comparing random samples of types from spring (n = 2,871) and

fall (n = 2,083) videography, the frequency of occurrences of types between seasons differed

(Chi-square, P < 0.001) (Bartlett et al. 1997). Some of these differences were due to changes in

vegetation characteristics between spring and fall that affected identification. For example, one

expects to find more wetlands in the spring versus fall videography due to wetter soils and more

open canopy (i.e., less leaf-cover) in spring, increasing visibility to the forest floor. However,

other differences in the occurrences of types seemed to be related to seasonal differences in

interpretation. For example, what one calls deciduous/coniferous forest in the spring

videography could be called a deciduous forest in the fall videography due to the dominance of

the bright colors in the fall foliage (Bartlett et al. 1997). Thus, readers of our accuracy

assessment are cautioned that our standard of comparison was aerial videography, not what was

actually on the ground at the time of satellite image acquisition (although field-checks of the

videography suggested reasonable agreement to types on the ground [Bartlett 1995 et al.]).

Given what is currently known about vertebrate-habitat relations, we believe the vegetation and

land cover classes used in ME-GAP were adequate for predicting the potential distributions of

the state’s terrestrial vertebrates. However, in terms of identifying gaps in the conservation of

plant communities (i.e., Davis et al. 1996, Stoms et al. 1998), the vegetation and land use classes

should be more specific than the ones used here. On-going research at the Maine Image Analysis

Laboratory, University of Maine, is assessing the relative importance of different spectral bands,

and temporal and spatial resolution of these data, in correctly identifying vegetation types in

Maine. Once this research is completed in three to four years, we will have a much better chance

to map at least some plant communities to the alliance level, and know the relative cost versus

benefit of doing more detailed vegetation mapping.

Not all vegetations and land use classes were mapped with the same level of accuracy. In

general, however, we suspect that wetland types were mapped more accurately than upland types

because the majority of the later were identified and mapped from aerial photographs (NWI)

whereas the former came from TM data. Even in the case of wetlands, however, there is

undoubtedly variation in accuracy rates by types. For example, NWI maps are known to be more

accurate for unforested (e.g., peatlands) versus forested (e.g., red maple swamp) wetlands (Sader

et al. 1995, Stolt and Baker 1995). However, at the level of USEPA EMAP hexagons (the

analysis unit used by GAP), we doubt the accuracy of any vegetation or land use class was so

poor as to cause nonprediction of any species of terrestrial vertebrate that regularly breeds in

Maine. Users interested in assessing population viability, in contrast to small-scale presenceabsence predictions, must be concerned with small wetlands (and other habitats) being

unmapped (e.g., Gibbs 1993).
25

Slight disagreement is expected even at the superclass level of class resolution due to temporal,

spatial, and class differences between the satellite imagery and the videography. Differences in

the date of the videography (1994) and the satellite imagery (1991 and 1993) also created some

differences in the actual conditions on the ground. Temporal differences would be most likely

between different states of forest regeneration, as well as between forest regeneration and

agriculture. Spatial differences between the polygon outlines delineated from the videography

and the satellite imagery exist given the high level of spatial heterogeneity of the Maine

landscape. Class differences between the class scheme used when interpreting the videography

and the final class scheme for our map may have lead to inaccuracies when comparing the typed

videography and the map output. Visual comparison of all training sites and resulting spectral

statistics limited the errors in classification due to mislabeling of videography sites. However,

we were unable to conduct a similar comparison of all accuracy assessment sites with the

original, unclassified satellite imagery to double check the labeling done by the video interpreter.

The accuracy assessment reported here is based on statewide data. Because the vegetation and

land cover map of Maine is based on multiple TM scenes assembled together, these accuracy

numbers should not be assumed to be the same among scenes for a number of reasons. First,

scenes were taken in different years, seasons, and times of day. Such scene differences result in

not all classes being mapped with the same probabilities of correctness. Furthermore, class

compromises were made when fitting scenes together. More specifically, to prevent showing

scene boundaries, it was often necessary to slightly increase the number of pixels in one class

although reducing the number of pixels assigned to that same class in an adjoining scenes.

While this resulted in a relatively seamless map, it undoubtedly introduced errors. Users

considering applying the ME-GAP vegetation map at a local (i.e., substate) level should be

aware that accuracy rates in the area of interest to them may be considerably different (i.e.,

higher or lower) than the statewide averages reported here. For a more complete discussion of

the issue of geographic variations in the map’s accuracy, see Hepinstall et al. (In Review).

In conclusion, we believe that the vegetation and land cover map produced for ME-GAP was

adequate for the intended use of being the major data source for making seamless predictions of

the occurrences of native, nonfish vertebrates across Maine. Readers can judge for themselves

whether or not this goal was achieved by reviewing the predicted distribution maps for each of

the 270 vertebrate species in Boone and Krohn (1998a,b).
26

PREDICTED ANIMAL DISTRIBUTIONS

AND SPECIES RICHNESS

We saw a pair of moose horns on the shore,

and I asked Joe [Thoreau’s Indian guide] if a moose had shed them;

but he said there was a head attached to them,

and I knew that they did not shed their heads

more than once in their lives.

Thoreau - The Maine Woods, 1848

Introduction

Range maps are coarse-level predictions about the occurrence of those species across a particular

area (Csuti 1994). Traditionally, the ranges of most species are delineated with samples from

collections made at individual point locations. Most species range maps are small-scale (e.g., >

1:10,000,000) and derived primarily from point data to construct field guides. The purpose of

the GAP vertebrate species maps is to provide more precise information about the current

predicted distribution of individual native species within their general ranges. With this

information, better estimates can be made about the actual amounts of habitat area and the nature

of its configuration.

ME-GAP maps were produced at a nominal scale of 1:100,000, and are intended for applications

at the landscape or “gamma” scale (homogeneous areas generally covering 10,000 to 1,000,000

hectares and made up of more than one kind of natural community). Applications of these data

to site- or stand-level analyses (site— a microhabitat, generally 10 to 100 square meters; stand - a

single habitat type, generally 0.1 to 1,000 ha; Whittaker 1977, see also Stoms and Estes 1993)

are likely to be compromised by the finer-grained patterns of environmental heterogeneity that

are resolved at those levels.

Gap analysis uses the predicted distributions of animal species to evaluate their conservation

status relative to existing land management (Scott et al. 1993). However, maps of species

distributions may be used to answer a wide variety of management, planning, and research

questions relating to individual species or groups of species. In addition to the maps, great utility

may be found in the consolidated species occurrence records and literature that are assembled

into databases used to produce the maps.

Previous to this effort there were no maps available, digital or otherwise, showing the likely

present-day distribution of species by cover types across their ranges. Because of this, ordinary

species (i.e., those not threatened with extinction or not managed as game animals) are generally

not given sufficient consideration in land-use decisions in the context of large geographic regions

or in relation to their actual habitats. Their decline because of incremental habitat loss can, and

does, result in one threatened or endangered species “surprise” after another. Frequently, the

records that do exist for an ordinary species are truncated by state boundaries. Simply creating a

consistent spatial framework for storing, retrieving, manipulating, analyzing, and updating our

knowledge about the status of each animal species is one of the most necessary and basic
27

elements for preventing further erosion of biological resources.

Mapping Standards

Species included in these analyses were native breeding, terrestrial (i.e., non-fish) vertebrates of

Maine with some portion of their population breeding inland at least five of the last 10 years.

This definition excludes the coastal birds, such as Double-crested Cormorantsa and Eider Ducks,

which should be mapped using different methods than those described here. Also excluded are

sea turtles, marine mammals, and seven introduced species (i.e., the Mudpuppy, Black Rat,

House Mouse, Rock Dove, European Starling, House Finch, and House Sparrow). Included is

the Canada Goose, while not originally a native nester to Maine, it now nests in the state as well

as being a native breeder in Quebec.

Whether or not species had been breeding in the state in at least five of the last 10 years was

determined by literature review, expert advice, and personal experience. The decision to include

or exclude species is not a trivial one -- including too many sporadic breeding species would

unduly elevate commission errors (Boone and Krohn, 1999). For example, lists prepared by

the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) show more than 100 species of

birds as incidental in Maine.

Methods

Mapping Range Extent

Range maps were developed for each of the terrestrial vertebrate species that were judged to

regularly breed in Maine, 1984-1993. For each species, a range map was created that depicted

potentially occupied and unoccupied Maine townships. A small map of the species’ regional

distribution was included as an inset. Initial species ranges for Maine were from smooth-curve

maps in DeGraaf and Rudis (1986), and were generalized to townships. Supplemental data used

to guide the placement of range boundaries included atlas data for amphibians and reptiles

(Hunter et al. 1992), and birds (Adamus 1987). Additional data used were observations recorded

in the MDIFW Biological Conservation Database of endangered and rare vertebrates, and

MDIFW harvest data for game species. Observations were generalized to townships, and

overlaid onto the range maps.

Regional species ranges for New England were initially from DeGraaf and Rudis (1986), with

additional general references for each group of species (Table 9). Species ranges were modified

based upon a literature review, with .107 sources reviewed for amphibians and reptiles, with 10

directly pertinent to ranges, .243 reviewed for mammals, with 20 regarding ranges, and .321

sources for birds, with 35 directly pertinent to range limits.

______________________________________________________________________________ a

 - Scientific names of wildlife species used in ME-GAP are given in Boone and Krohn

(1998a,b).
28

Table 9. Major references used in ME-GAP to delineate ranges of terrestrial vertebrates that

regularly breed in Maine.

Vertebrate Classes Major Literature Sources

Amphibians

and Reptiles

Andrews (1995), Bider and Matte (1994)

b

, Bleakney (1958), Conant and Collins

(1991), DeGraaf and Rudis (1986), Gilhen (1984), Hunter et al. (1992)a

, Klemens

(1993), McAlpine (1997), Taylor (1993)b

.

Mammals Banfield (1974), Burt and Grossenheider (1976), DeGraaf and Rudis (1986),

Dilworth (1984)

b

, Godin (1977).

Birds Adamus (1987)

a , DeGraaf and Rudis (1986), Erskine (1992)b

, Foss (1994)b,

Gauthier and Aubry (1996)b

.

a

 - Maine-specific atlas.

b

 - Atlas from adjacent state or province.

We marked on each Maine range map the range limit we believed appropriate based upon the

literature reviewed, Maine atlas and MDIFW data, and atlas observations the adjacent state or

provinces. We were fortunate in having excellent atlas coverage in New Hampshire, New

Brunswick, and Quebec, especially for breeding birds (Table 9). Maps were placed into volumes

by species group (i.e., amphibian and reptile, mammals, passerine birds, and nonpasserine birds),

and 34 copies (12 amphibian and reptile, 12 mammal, and 10 bird) of these volumes were

distributed to experts for their comments. Based upon feedback from experts, finalized maps

were incorporated into a geographic information system (GIS), using ARC/INFO Version 7.0.2

(Unix) and Version 3.4.2 (DOS) (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands,

California, USA; use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the US Government).

Smooth range maps stored as raster ARC/INFO grids were created from the reviewed maps.

Range limits for birds were reasonably accurate when compared to smoothed empirical data (i.e.,

USGS Biological Resources Division Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) results, which were not used

to develop ranges). Of 80 species with range limits in the state, 47 had adequate BBS data for

testing. For species with high quality smoothed BBS maps (n = 18), the median error between

ranges and observed data was 8%. When disagreement in area was considered the error was

3.9% for species with high quality kriged maps (Boone 1996), and 4.5% for all 47 species.

Wildlife Habitat Relationships

Relations to Mapped Habitat

A wildlife habitat relationships database specific to Maine had not been created when we began

our work, so we had to create one. We used a literature review and a review by experts to assign

use (i.e., absent, rarely occurs, occasional occurrence, common, and abundant) by each species to

47 habitats. The matrices included levels of use for breeding (e.g., nest sites built in cavity trees)

and feeding (e.g., waste crops fed upon in agricultural areas).

Initial scores (0 = unused to 4 = frequently used) for wildlife habitat relationships were assigned

primarily from DeGraaf and Rudis (1986). A paper file was create for each species, and within

the file, habitat use was recorded and amended during an extensive literature review. After an
29

initial review of the literature, three page species synopses were created, which included a habitat

matrix for each species. These synopses were formed into volumes and were forwarded to

regional experts for review (Appendix 4). Their comments were incorporated into finalized

species synopses, and the values were digitized to create a wildlife habitat relationships database.

The wildlife habitat relationships database was then reformatted by cross-walking the 47 habitats

in the database to the 37 types of habitats mapped by ME-GAP, using custom programs and

review. For presence/absence modeling in ME-GAP, habitat use scores $ 2 were shown as used,

and scores 0 and 1 were shown as unused.

Relations to Ancillary Data Layers

Ancillary layers of information that proved useful in modeling species distributions included

elevation, wetland type, and hydrology. Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) from the USGS were

acquired from the Maine Office of GIS, and merged into a seamless DEM for the state. This grid

has a spatial resolution of 94 m cells, with elevation stored to the nearest meter above mean sea

level. Wetland type was a supertype primarily from the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory

(NWI) (a portion of the wetlands were mapped from satellite imagery, as explained in Land

Cover Classification and Mapping). These coarse wetland types included six classes: palustrine,

lacustrine, riverine, estuarine, ocean, and upland. The vegetation map for ME-GAP stored “open

water” for example, but the map alone does not define the open water as a pond or ocean. When

the wetland type is considered, however, the two are differentiated. Streams and single-line

rivers were from the USGS 1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graphs (DLGs) of hydrology. Ponds,

lakes, and double-line rivers were primarily from the USFWS NWI. Additional hydrology

layers used in modeling included the USGS 1:100,000 scale DLGs of ponds, lakes, and doubleline rivers. Whereas the water bodies in the NWI data layer were not divided into types, we had

annotated the 1:100,000 scale database to identify 1) ponds and lakes, 2) rivers, and 3) oceans, as

well as islands within each of those types. Knowledge of island ecology was useful in modeling

nesting Common Tern habitat, for example. Finally, for species that use streams but not larger

rivers (e.g., the stream-dwelling salamanders), US EPA River Reach 3 hydrology layers were

used. From these layers, which were based upon the same 1:100,000 scale streams and rivers

already described, we could identify Maine’s low-order (i.e., upper-most in drainage) streams.

Associations of terrestrial vertebrate species with ancillary information (e.g., elevation,

hydrology) were identified from the literature. Few wildlife species in Maine have associations

to elevations that are strong enough to warrant inclusion in a model of presence and absence.

Elevation may affect abundances of species (e.g., Richards 1994), but apparently elevational

gradients in Maine are not strong enough to have major effects on the presence of species. For

those species where the inclusion of elevation was warranted (e.g., Bicknell’s Thrush, Rock

Vole) the elevational limits were from the literature.

The strength of association of vertebrates to hydrology was determined from the literature.

Often in the literature the distance an animal may travel from water to feed, loaf, or nest was

cited. In general, typical distances from water were used; anecdotes of extreme distances were

not included in habitat models. Also, some species (e.g., Common Snapping Turtles) may travel

long distances to nest. Because we do not believe nesting sites to be limiting in Maine, and

because inclusion of such large buffers around water would greatly overestimate occurrence, we
30

did not include such excursions in associations with water. Ancillary data used in conjunction

with the vegetation map to predict vertebrate occurrences is shown in Table 10.
31

Table 10. GIS grids and coverages used in the animal species modeling process. Refer to the

metadata accompanying the digital data for more complete descriptions. Where GIS grids

contained more than one significant layer used in modeling, both are listed separately (e.g.,

allnwig, alnwig.wet_int).

Coverage Name Acquisition Source Description

*bnd, where * are species

codes

ME-GAP product Coverages containing only tics, defining the boundary

of each species’ distribution, used to limit analysis

windows.

allnwig USFWS NWI Wetlands classed using Cowardin et al. (1979).

allnwig.wet_int Generated from USFWS

NWI

Major wetland types (i.e., palustrine, lacustrine,

estuarine, riverine, sea) and upland.

durbandis Generated from

habmap (see below)

Distance to dense urban and industrial areas.

g*, where * are species

codes

ME-GAP product Grids of species ranges within the state.

habmap ME-GAP product Vegetation and land cover map (Map 2).

Habhu ME-GAP product, NRCS

DLG

Vegetation map merged with the US NRCS 11 digit

code watershed boundaries.

r*, where * are species

codes

ME-GAP product Ranges of species, generalized to watersheds (see Methods).

reachsf100 Generated from

EPA River Reach

Areas within 100 m of terminal streams.

reachsflag Generated from

EPA River Reach

Terminal streams within the 1:100,000 scale DLGs.

streamsg USGS DLG Streams and single-line rivers.

strmdis Generated from USGS

DLG

Distance to streams.

urban1km Generated from

habmap (see above)

Areas within 1 km from sparse or dense residential

areas.

wateralloc Generated from USGS

DLG

Category of water closest to each cell (i.e., an allocation

grid from eucdistance).

waterarea Generated from

habmap (see above)

Area of ponds, lakes, and two-line rivers.

waterdis Generated from Habmap

(see above)

Distance to ponds, lakes, and two-line rivers.

watershore Generated from habmap

(see above)

The distance from water edges into the water body.

wbodies USGS DLG Water bodies from 1:100,000 scale DLGs.

wetarea Generated from USFWS

NWI

Wetland area.

wetlanddis Generated from

USFWS NWI

Distance to wetlands.

wetlandshore Generated from USFWS

NWI

The distance from wetland edges into the wetland.

wetsf100 Generated from USFWS

NWI, EPA

Wetlands that include a portion of terminal branches of

streams from EPA River Reach.
32

Distribution Modeling

Overview

We sought to identify areas where each terrestrial vertebrate had a reasonable possibility of

occurring. To do that, we selected types from the vegetation and land cover map that were

considered suitable for each species, then reduced the habitats shown as potentially occupied

using relationships to ancillary data (e.g., distance to nearest water). Habitats that were beyond

the range of the species were considered unavailable.

Detailed Methods of Modeling

All species modeling was conducted in GRID, the raster component of ARC/INFO. Using raster

modeling techniques allowed very large spatial databases to be overlaid and analyzed relatively

quickly. We constructed 277 individual ARC/INFO AMLs (including 7 for exotic species) that

merged data sources using the algebraic expressions of GRID. An example AML, modeling the

occurrence of Common Snapping Turtles, is shown in Appendix 5.

Species ranges use a sharp line delineating presence and absence, but in reality ranges are

essentially probability curves, where the occurrence of a species declines to near zero. To

minimize the effect of having predicted distribution stop abruptly at an artificial range boundary,

GAP has adopted the practice of identifying as habitat any patch that is judged appropriate for

the species, and falls partially within the species’ range. In ME-GAP, we anticipated having

some very large habitat patches that would extend an inappropriately long distance beyond the

range of a species. To limit the extent that habitat patches could extend beyond the range of the

species, we did not allow a patch to be identified as habitat unless it was within a watershed that

included a portion of the species’ range.

A look-up table, in ASCII format, was created for each species that showed use or nonuse for the

37 habitats within the ME-GAP vegetation and land cover map. For each 30 m square cell in the

map, the value of the habitat to the species was looked-up within the table (i.e., using

RECLASS). This created a spatial database of used and nonused landscape patches for the

species in question. Processing time using this highly resolved (30 m) map in successive stages

of analysis was prohibitive and beyond the spatial resolution needed, so the use/nonuse database

was generalized to 90 m cells, using a block majority algorithm (see Appendix 5, program

RECLSER.AML). All subsequent analyses were conducted at 90 m resolution, with all ancillary

data used in modeling at their original resolution, which is usually 30 m.

The above process yielded a 90 m resolution spatial database of landscape patches appropriate

for the species being modeled. The database included the entire state, but had not been restricted

using ancillary information, such as hydrology for example, leaving these steps to be completed

in another process. This two-tiered analysis process worked well, allowing the habitat value

scores assigned and resampling to 90 m to be done just once, although modeling of predicted

occurrence could be done multiple times.
33

For each species, a complete tabular database of species-habitat associations was maintained,

with associations defined at a finer level (47 habitat types). A pointer (i.e., cursor) was defined

to allow the values of the table to be queried during species modeling (see Appendix 5). This

allowed us to identify relationships to characteristics beyond those defined in the habitat matrix.

For example, we had scored species use of shallow flowing streams, so we used the scores when

modeling relations to streams and single-line rivers. The program (chsemod.aml) in Appendix 5

includes such a relation.

To conduct the actual modeling, relatively complex if-then-else-endif commands were used in

GRID to include only landscape cells that were appropriate for each species. For example, the

following program fragment from chsemod.aml (see Appendix 5):

&sv habget = 'SRW' 1

 &call gethab 2

 &sv running = %:hab.habscore% 3

 &sv habget = 'SSW' 4

 &call gethab 5

 &sv standing = %:hab.habscore% 6

 &sv habget = 'DSW' 7

 &call gethab 8

 &sv deep = %:hab.habscore% 9

if (../hab/streamsg == 1) habmod90 = %running% 10

else if (../hab/strmdis <= 75) habmod90 = habrec90 11

else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/waterdis <= 75) and ~ 12

(../hab/waterdis > 0)) habmod90 = habrec90

else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/wetlanddis <= 75)) ~ 13

habmod90 = habrec90

else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/watershore <= 250) and ~ 14

(../hab/watershore > 0)) habmod90 = %standing%

else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/watershore <= 500) and ~ 15

(../hab/watershore > 250)) habmod90 = %deep%

endif 16

sets species-habitat scores for shallow running water (“running”, line #3), shallow standing water

(“standing”, #6), and deep standing water (“deep”, #9). It then creates a grid called habmod90

based upon an if-then-else command. In particular, cells in the grid include: all streams (line

#10); areas within 75 m of streams (#11); upland areas within 75 m of fresh water (#12); areas

within 75 m of wetlands (#13); water within 250 m of shore (#14, assigned a value for shallow

water); and water from 250 m to 500 m (#15, assigned a value for deep water). Note how each

line includes palustrine, lacustrine, riverine, and upland (allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}), but

excludes open ocean and estuarine areas (allnwig.wet_int = 1 or 2).

After modeling occurrences of species, we found that the typical method used in GAP (described

above) to keep predicted distributions from stopping abruptly at range edges had only been

partially successful — the habitat patches within the ME-GAP habitat map are extremely small,

on average. The predicted distributions of species with range limits in the state did extend

beyond range boundaries in some cases, but the range limit was still extremely obvious. An

abrupt edge to potential habitat is biologically inaccurate, and visually distracting. To remedy

this, we blurred the edges of species ranges.

To blur species ranges, we converted selected cells modeled as used to nonused along the range

edge. Within a 3 to 50 km buffer from the range limit (width dependent upon the mobility and
34

rarity of species) we converted cells based upon a stratified-random value, using a linear relation

as the edge of the range was approached. In more general terms, randomly selected used cells

were converted to nonused — only a few away from the species’ range, and many near the

species’ range limit. The resulting grids where edited, if necessary, to remove cells shown as

habitat well beyond the species’ range. The resulting grids were final predicted species

distributions from ME-GAP. Additional details on smoothing predicted habitats near edges of

ranges is given in Boone and Krohn (1998).

Review of Species Distribution Maps

Investigators on the project reviewed the predicted species distributions, and adjustments to

species models were made prior to finalizing the predictions. We did not subject our predicted

distributions to an external expert review, believing that because this is the first time statewide

species predictions have been created for Maine, no one can actually be an expert in such

matters. To ask reviewers to comment on the accuracy of predicted distributions with over one

million landscape patches would be asking that they confirm the accuracy of some very small

percentage they were familiar with; a circumstance we did not deem appropriate. Rather than

submit our maps to external review, we have placed additional effort in conducting accuracy

assessment and reporting the results rigorously. In addition, predicted distributions of all

species, along with information on habitat use and status of individual terrestrial vertebrates, are

available in companion documents (Boone and Krohn 1998a,b).

Edge-Matching Species Distributions

Maine borders a single state, New Hampshire, with the gap analysis for that state being

conducted by personnel of the University of Vermont, with D. Capen as principal investigator.

Several meetings between ME-GAP and VT/NH-GAP have taken place during the duration of

our project, in an effort to ensure data layers edge-match. We have provided VT/NH-GAP with

range limits for species in northern New England. In a meeting with VT/NH-GAP personnel and

experts in regional habitat associations (i.e., R. DeGraaf and M. Yamasaki, USDA Forest

Service) the habitat relations used in ME-GAP were reviewed, and found to be essentially

consistent across northern New England. Final reports and digital data will be provided to

VT/NH-GAP. In an agreement among northeastern states doing gap analyses, those completing

projects later will edge-match with those projects completed earlier.

Summary Analysis

The predicted distributions of species were joined spatially with US EPA EMAP hexagons to

identify which hexagons contained each species. The occurrence of each species in each

hexagon was noted, and placed in a computer file, where custom computer programs were used

to tally the number of species (i.e., species richness) for each of the EMAP hexagons. From

these, maps and tabulations were made.

Additional tabulations were done on the habitat matrices used in modeling predicted species

distributions. The numbers of species using each habitat were tabulated using custom programs.

Finally, richness totals at the full resolution of the species models were created by tallying the
35

number of species predicted to use each cell. Richness maps were drawn using custom shading

to highlight patterns.

Results

We considered 270 native terrestrial vertebrate species to be regularly breeding in Maine,

including 17 amphibians, 16 reptiles, 183 birds, and 54 mammals. Seven introduced species

were excluded from analysis. In general, many species (73%) were associated with abandoned

fields (Table 11), based upon species-habitat associations. This reflects the general nature of

abandoned fields; they may be wet or dry, brushy or with many trees, etc. Few species were

associated with other agricultural lands, with the only 26% of Maine’s terrestrial vertebrates

predicted to use crops/ground. Many species (56%) are associated with sparse residential areas,

which could include areas with few homes, such as the edges of developed lakes. Fewer species

(4%) were associated with urban and industrial habitat than with any other (Table 11). Between

about 50% and 65% of species were associated with the forest types of Maine, but most species

(n = 221; 82%) were associated with some type of forested habitat. Wetlands are extremely

influential in determining the distribution of Maine’s vertebrates. Over 200 species where

thought to potentially use one of the scrub-shrub habitats, and essentially all species (267) could

make use of some type of wetland, when shoreline habitats are included. When shoreline

habitats are excluded, 257 species (95%) are still shown as associated with some type of wetland.

The tundra and rocky vegetation types were used by relatively few species (< 12%) (Table 11).
36

Table 11. The number of species using each of the classes within the vegetation and land cover

map of ME-GAP. Whether habitats were used or not was taken form the species-habitat

matrices used to model occurrence. Not all habitats listed will be included in each of the

predicted distributions for species.

Habitat or Land Cover Amphibians

(n = 17)

Reptiles

(n = 16)

Birds

(n = 183)

Mammals

(n = 54)

All Species

Agricultural Lands (n = 270)

 Abandoned field 12 15 126 46 199

 Blueberry field 1 5 60 12 78

 Grasslands 4 15 82 36 137

 Crops/Ground 2 6 50 13 71

Developed lands

 Sparse residential 9 10 107 26 152

 Dense residential 1 3 39 11 54

 Urban/Industrial 0 1 9 1 11

 Highways/Runways 2 8 58 18 86

Forestlands

 Clearcut 1 8 96 37 142

 Early regeneration 4 9 77 39 129

 Late regeneration 8 8 77 40 133

 Light partial cut 11 8 105 41 165

 Heavy partial cut 7 8 100 43 158

 Deciduous forest 14 10 87 48 159

 Deciduous/coniferous forest 15 10 102 50 177

 Coniferous/deciduous forest 14 8 106 48 176

 Coniferous forest 14 8 89 43 154

Water & Wetlands

 Deciduous forest 16 15 105 48 184

 Coniferous forest 15 10 117 46 188

 Dead forest 16 13 122 48 199

 Deciduous scrub-shrub 15 14 135 50 214

 Coniferous scrub-shrub 15 13 144 49 221

 Dead scrub-shrub 15 14 149 49 227

 Fresh aquatic bed 14 11 54 14 93

 Fresh emergent 15 12 84 37 148

 Peatland 15 16 108 44 180

 Wet meadow 15 15 95 43 168

 Salt aquatic bed 9 8 51 13 81

 Salt emergent 9 10 81 33 133

 Mudflat 11 9 83 35 138

 Sand shore 10 10 83 32 135

 Gravel shore 8 8 47 22 85

 Rock shore 8 8 47 22 85

 Shallow water 14 11 56 20 101

 Open water 2 6 34 12 54

Other

 Alpine tundra 1 0 12 10 23

 Exposed rock/Talus 0 5 14 12 31

The total species richness based upon EMAP hexagons varied from 186 to 230 species, with a

mean of 213.0 ± 11.4 (Figure 6). Areas of highest richness were in southeastern Maine and

southern Maine, whereas areas of lowest richness were in northwestern Maine. The frequency

distribution of numbers of hexagons per species count (Figure 7) is fairly broadly distributed,

with perhaps three peaks, including one for hexagons with < 200 species, corresponding well

with the Moosehead Plateau (Krohn et al. 1999). The general patterns of species richness
37

similar to those in Figure 6 have been correlated to geomorphology, woody plants, and climate

(Boone and Krohn, In Press). The highest density of species in southeastern Maine

appears related to the Atlantic Ocean ameliorated climate and to an elevated number of birds

having range limits in the region (Boone 1996).

Amphibian species richness ranges from 12 to 17 species. Patterns are evident in the distribution

of amphibians (Figure 8A) but the overarching pattern is essentially one of statewide species.

For example, most hexagons in Maine have 15 or 16 amphibians (Figure 8A). In sharp contrast,

the species richness of reptiles ranges from 2 to 16 species, with a smooth gradient from southern

to northern Maine (Figure 8B). The numbers of hexagons with 2 to 16 species is fairly evenly

distributed (Figure 9B), again evidence of the smooth gradient. Associated research found that

the general gradient in reptile richness was highly correlated (r2 = 0.95) with variation in woody

plant species richness (Boone 1996); the two maps are essentially the same. From these maps, a

biogeographer may conclude that the ranges of reptiles are more limited by winter temperatures

in Maine than are the ranges of amphibians.

Bird species richness varied from 129 to 159 species, with the highest richness in southeastern

and western Maine (Figure 6C). Birds show a peaked distribution of frequencies of hexagon

richness (Figure 9C), although again the counts are distributed across the range of values. Bird

richness declines notably at the edge of the Moosehead Plateau in northwestern Maine (Figure

8C). Areas of highest richness are theorized to be associated with woody plant transition zones,

which pass through the center of the state (see Boone 1996 for details). Mammals are most rich

in the southern part of the state and the mountainous regions (Figure 8D), with most hexagons

having 42, 43, or 44 species of mammals (Figure 9D). An association of mammals to

mountainous regions has been identified previously (e.g., Simpson 1964). Mammals are thought

to become specialized along the slopes of mountains, whereas more mobile birds are more

closely associated with plant distributions.

When species richness is calculated for the individual 90 m cells of Maine, patterns similar to

those in Figures 6 and 8 emerge, but are more subtle. Maps for species richness of vertebrate

classes (Map 3) emphasize the fine-grained structure to habitats in Maine. Habitat patches in the

state are very small, in general. The patterns of richness for amphibians is more varied than in

maps of EMAP hexagon richness (Figure 8A), with coastal plain areas below about 300 m being

most rich. As for all vertebrate classes, open water, urban sites, and active agricultural areas had

the lowest species richness. Reptiles exhibited a smooth gradient in species richness from

southern to northern Maine (Map 3), likely associated with plant and soil patterns as well as

climatic effects (Boone and Krohn, In Press). Birds are more evenly distributed across

Maine than when depicted using EMAP hexagons, but areas of highest richness are to the east

and north. This pattern is opposite that observed when mapped with hexagons (Figure 8C).

Related research (Boone 1996) suggests this pattern reflects the abundance of forest specialist

birds in Maine -- there are more species of birds occurring in southern Maine, but they use a

variety of habitats. There are fewer birds occurring in northern Maine, but there are more habitat

specialists, so the species richness within individual 90 m cells is elevated. Highest mammal

richness is associated with the wetlands of central Maine and with the foothill region of southern

Maine. In general, however, areas of high species richness for mammals are scattered

throughout the state, excluding open water; urban and agricultural areas have low richness (Map

3).
Figure 6. Predicted distribution of total vertebrate richness by hexagons.
Figure 7. Frequency distribution of total vertebrate richness by hexagons.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

190 192 194 196 198 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230

All vertebrate species per hexagon (n)

Hexagons (n)
Figure 8. Predicted vertebrate richness by taxonomic classes and hexagons.
41

A – Amphibians B – Reptiles

C – Birds D - Mammals

Figure 9. Frequency distribution of vertebrate richness by taxonomic classes and hexagons.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Mammals species per hexagon (n)

Hexagons (n)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159

Bird species per hexagon (n)

Hexagons (n)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Reptile species per hexagon (n)

Hexagons (n)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

12 13 14 15 16 17

Amphibian species per hexagon (n)

Hexagons (n)
rrestrial (i.e., non-fish) vertebrate distributions were predicted

ng habitat relations and geographic ranges. Native species that

ed regularly in inland Maine were included. Modeled distributions for 

ecies groups were stacked to derive predicted numbers of species

., species richness). Colors were adjusted to best depict each map. 

Produced by Maine Cooperative Fish

and Wildlife Reasearch Unit, USGS Biological

Resources Division, and the Department of

Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, Orono

	 Map Pr oduced: June 1998

Map 3Species richness patterns of vertebrates
42

“(see Map 3 – previous page)”

Map 4 shows richness for all vertebrates, and like Figure 6, the southern portions of Maine are

richest. Areas of high species richness (red colors) are scattered throughout the state however.

Open water, urban, and agricultural areas are lowest in richness. Areas of highest richness are

large open wetlands (i.e, peatland complexes); central Maine is an extremely wet portion of the

state (Maps 1 and 2) and has high species richness. A band of drier, less species rich habitats

occur from the western mountains to Penobscot Bay, which is likely partially correct. Note

however that the method of mapping wetlands was not consistent throughout the state, and some

of the pattern described may be an artifact. Specifically, note the spatial coincidence between

that part of Maine where NWI maps in digital form were unavailable (Figure 5) to the richness

patterns for mammals (and possible birds) (Map 3) and all terrestrial vertebrates (Map 4). It

appears that our underestimation of wetlands from TM data in south central Maine (see Land

Cover Classification and Mapping) possibily resulted in an underestimate of the number of

vertebrate species in this part of the state. However, we have no way to test for this potential

bias until statewide NWI maps in digital form are available. Even if our estimate of vertebrate

richness in part of south central Maine is low, this is not a serious shortcoming from a statewide

perspective given the relatively small area involved, but could be for certain types of detailed

analysis in southern Maine (see Habitat Associations under Limitations and Discussion below).

Accuracy Assessment

Assessing the accuracy of the predicted vertebrate distributions is subject to many of the same

problems as assessing land cover maps, as well as a host of more serious challenges related to

both the behavioral aspects of species and the logistics of detecting them. These are described

further in the Background section of the GAP Handbook on the national GAP home page

(http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/). It is, however, necessary to provide some measure of

confidence in the results of the gap analysis for each species (comparison to stewardship and

management status), and to allow users to judge the suitability of the distribution maps for their

own uses. We therefore feel it is important to provide users with a statement about the accuracy

of GAP predicted vertebrate distributions within the limitations of available resources and

practicalities of such an endeavor. We acknowledge that distribution maps are never finished

products, but are continually updated as new information is gathered. However, we feel that

assessing the accuracy of their current iteration provides useful information about their reliability

to potential users. We especially encourage wildlife biologists and amateur naturalists to treat

the predicted distributions as testable hypotheses and engage in the process of validation and

iterative modeling. Our goal was to produce maps that predict distributions of terrestrial

vertebrates and from that, total species richness and species content with an accuracy of 80% or

higher. Any failure to achieve this accuracy would indicate the need to refine the data sets and

models used for predicting distribution. The methods for validating and assessing the accuracy

of the vertebrate distribution maps are presented in the following section along with the results.

“(see Map 4)”
restrial (i.e., non-fish) verterate distributions were

dicted using habitat relations and range limits.

ive species that bred regularly in inland Maine

e included. Modeled distributions for species

ups were stacked yielding predicted number

pecies (i.e., species richness). Colors were

usted to highlight patterns.

duced by the Main Cooperative Fish

d Wildlife Research Unit

GS Biological Resources Division

d the

partment of Wildlife Ecology

versity of Maine, Orono

p produced:

June 1998

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 19

1927 North American Datum, Clarke 1866 Spheroid
43

Methods

ME-GAP’s accuracy assessment was conducted for 17 amphibians, 16 reptiles, 182 birds, and 54

mammals for which predictions were generated. Note that the number of birds is one less than

used for creating the predictions. The Nelson’s Sharp-tailed sparrow was dropped from the

accuracy assessment because it has just recently been split by taxonomists from the Salt Marsh

Sharp-tailed Sparrow, making it difficult to determine if the species occurrence records for the

Salt Marsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow were for both or just the parent species.

To test the accuracy of the vertebrate predictions we compared lists of predicted species to data

available on ten test sites throughout Maine. Sites were well distributed geographically (Figure

10) and included four National Wildlife Refuges and one National Park having checklist data of

terrestrial breeding vertebrates, where a checklist is defined as a comprehensive list of breeding

and nonbreeding vertebrate species obtained through combining records of individual sightings,

long-term field inventory, and research conducted on a given site. Ideally, we would like to

know how much time and effort went into the field inventories and research. However, in some

cases, especially when working with sites having species checklists (i.e., Moosehorn National

Wildlife Refuge, Acadia National Park), these data do not exist. When actual number of years of

inventory was unavailable, the number of years in existence was used as a reference for

inventory effort. Unfortunately, this may over estimate the length of surveys for some

taxonomic classes (i.e., amphibians and reptiles). We also compared lists of predicted species to

data obtained from five research projects within all or part of three privately owned areas (Hagan

and Grove 1996; Hagan et al. 1997; Witham et al. 1993), one national forest (D. Capen, Univ. of

Vermont, per. comm.), and one state park (Oliveri 1993). In contrast to a checklist (i.e., longterm data), a research project is defined as data obtained from a specific project, usually focused

upon a particular group of species, to answer a given question (e.g., relations of forest songbirds

to forestry practices). Because we could not objectively partition out what species were and

were not the subject of study, we compared ME-GAP predictions for all species to those species

encountered by researchers. In most cases research projects encompass a much smaller area than

the species checklists, and have less inventory effort. Of the 10 test sites chosen only three sites

had data for all vertebrate classes (Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park, Rachel

Carson National Wildlife Refuge, and the Holt Research Forest). The other sites had information

only for birds, mammals or both (Table 12).
Figure 10. Locations and names of test sites used to assess the accuracy of predicted species distributions from ME-GAP.
45

Table 12. Test site names, data type and available information (indicated by an “x”) used in the

accuracy assessment of ME-GAP vertebrate predictions.

Name

of Test Site Size (ha)

Years in Existence

or of Survey

Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals

With Checklist

Mount Desert Island and

 Acadia National Park 28,033 79 x x x x

Moosehorn National

 Wildlife Refuge 9,297 61 x x

Sunkhaze Meadows

 National Wildlife Refuge 3,833 10 x

Rachel Carson National

 Wildlife Refuge 1,768 32 x x x x

Petit Manan National

 Wildlife Refuge 993 22 x

Mean ± standard deviation 8,785 ±

11,239 40.8 ± 28.5

With Research Data

North Maine Forestlands

 Study, Area 2a 498,753 2 x

North Maine Forestlands

 Study, Area 1b 138,973 1 x

White Mountains National

 Forest 181 5 x

Nesowadnehunk Field, Baxter

State Park 177 3 x

Holt Research Forest 172 15 x x x x

Mean ± standard deviation 127,651 ±

215,982 5.2 ± 5.7

a

 - 168 point count stations and 56 belt transects surveyed on an area approximately 498,753 ha.

b

 - 387 point count stations surveyed on an area approximately 138, 973 ha.

Before the accuracy assessment was conducted we recognized that difficult-to-detect species

were unlikely to be judged as modeled correctly when compared to existing checklists and

research inventories. Even with perfect knowledge of the occurrence of species, our predictions

may be judged as incorrect because the species hadn’t been observed on-site. Therefore,

Likelihood of Occurrence Ranks (LOORs) were assigned to all species. These ranks represent

how likely a species is to be observed during a survey, thus giving us a quantitative method to

better interpret the results from vertebrate accuracy assessments (Boone 1996; Boone and Krohn

1999). To assign statewide LOORs to amphibians and reptiles, the range of each species was

overlaid on updated atlas occurrences (Hunter et al. 1992). The total number of townships

within the range of a species was divided by the number of townships with observations of that

species, yielding a species-specific incidence of occurrence. Incidences for all species were

ranked from one to “n” (where “n” equals the maximum number of breeding species), and these

ranks were considered LOORs. These LOORs were then used to aggregate the predictions for

each test site into three groups, low to high, with roughly an equal number of species in each

group, based upon the total number of species predicted to be on a site.
46

Bird LOORs were calculated using occurrences in the Maine Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA)

(Adamus 1987) with methods similar to those used for amphibians and reptiles. Because the

BBA for Maine was somewhat outdated (15 years prior), we modeled spatial incidence using a

logistic regression of a suite of avian species-specific variables, including data from the USGS

BRD Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) during the period of the BBA. We then replaced the outdated

BBA data in the model with current data, and generated updated incidences (for details, see

Boone and Krohn 1999). These incidences were ranked, like the amphibians and reptiles, to

yield the LOORs. The predictions for birds at each site were aggregated into five groups (low to

high) with an additional group assigned a “zero” to indicate those species that were too rare or

uncommon to assign a rank. Because regular surveys of mammals have not been conducted in

Maine, a different method had to be used. To assign mammal LOORs, we ranked all of the

mammals in the state from one to “n” based upon our knowledge of their abundance and life

histories in Maine, yielding the LOORs. As with the other taxonomic classes mammal

predictions were aggregated into five groups, again with roughly equal number of species in each

group, based upon the LOORs and the number of species predicted to be at each site.

For each data type (checklist and research), omission error (percentage of species present on a

site that were not predicted), commission error (percentage of species predicted but not present

on a site), and overall accuracy (%) (see definition below) were calculated for each taxonomic

class, as well as all classes, within each test site. Medians, rather than means, were calculated to

summarize the errors for each taxonomic class (where possible) because of the small sample

sizes, and possibility of having skewed data. The LOORs were incorporated by counting the

number of species in each taxonomic class that were omitted (omission), over-predicted

(commission), and matched in each group on each site and seeing the relationship. Percent

accuracy of the predicted species occurrences was calculated by dividing the number of species

that matched on the lists by the sum of the number omitted, the number over-predicted, and the

number matched.

Results

Checklist sites had observations covering an average of 40.8 years (range: 10-79) whereas

research sites had data spanning only an average of 5.4 (range: 1-15) years (Table 12). Error

rates by sites with long-term (i.e., checklist) and short-term (i.e., research) field data are

summarized in Tables 13 and 14, respectively. Appendix 6 contains results for individual

species by test sites.
47

Table 13. Results of ME-GAP vertebrate accuracy assessment for areas where checklist data

were available. Sites are arranged, from top to bottom, largest to smallest.

 Matches Omission Error a

Commission

 Error a Managed area

 and Taxa Present Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Overall

Accuracyb

 (%)

Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park (28,033 ha)

Amphibians 15 15 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0

Reptiles 10 8 80.0 2 20.0 1 10.0 72.7

Mammals 37 35 94.6 2 5.4 7 18.9 79.6

Birds 135 134 99.3 1 0.7 23 17.4 84.8

 Total 197 192 97.5 5 2.6 31 15.7 84.2

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (9,297 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals 33 32 97.0 1 3.0 12 36.4 71.1

Birds 137 133 97.1 4 2.9 25 18.3 82.1

 Total 170 165 97.1 5 2.9 37 21.8 79.7

Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (3,833 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Birds 114 111 97.4 3 2.6 39 34.2 72.5

 Total 114 111 97.4 3 2.6 39 34.2 72.5

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (1,768 ha)

Amphibians 16 16 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0

Reptiles 16 16 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0

Mammals 44 39 88.6 5 11.4 5 11.4 79.6

Birds 79 79 100.0 0 0.0 74 93.7 51.6

 Total 155 150 96.8 5 3.2 79 51.0 64.1

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge (993 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Birds 92 92 100.0 0 0.0 64 69.6 59.0

 Total 92 92 100.0 0 0.0 64 69.6 59.0

a

 - See Glossary of Terms for definitions.

b

 - Overall Accuracy = [# matched / (# matched + # omission + # commission)] x 100.
48

Table 14. Results of ME-GAP vertebrate accuracy assessment for areas where research data

were available. Sites are arranged, from top to bottom, largest to smallest.

 Matches Omission Error a

 Commission

Error a Managed area

 and Taxa Present Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Overall

Accuracyb (%)

North Maine Forestlands Study, Area 2 (49,8753 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Birds 72 72 100.0 0 0.0 75 104.1 49.0

 Total 72 72 100.0 0 0.0 75 104.1 49.0

North Maine Forestlands Study, Area 1 (13,8973 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Birds 63 63 100.0 0 0.0 77 122.2 45.0

 Total 63 63 100.0 0 0.0 77 122.2 45.0

White Mountains National Forest (181 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Birds 74 74 100.0 0 0.0 61 82.4 54.9

 Total 74 74 100.0 0 0.0 61 82.4 54.9

Nesowadnehunk Field Bird Survey, Baxter State Park (177 ha)

Amphibians -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reptiles -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mammals -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Birds 55 55 100.0 0 0.0 76 138.2 42.0

 Total 55 55 100.0 0 0.0 76 138.2 42.0

 Holt Research Forest (172 ha)

Amphibians 12 12 100.0 0 0.0 3 25.0 80.0

Reptiles 7 7 100.0 0 0.0 4 57.1 63.6

Mammals 28 27 96.4 1 3.6 15 53.6 62.8

Birds 60 57 95.0 3 5.0 81 135.0 40.4

 Total 107 103 96.4 4 3.7 103 96.3 49.0

a

 - See Glossary of Terms for definitions.

b

 - Overall Accuracy = [# matched / (# matched + # omission + # commission)] x 100.

On sites with long-term checklist data, omission errors were low, with medians for amphibians,

reptiles, mammals, and birds of 0.0 %, 10.0 %, 5.4 %, and 0.7 % respectively. The

corresponding commission rates of errors were 0.0 %, 5.0 %, 18.9 %, and 34.2%, respectively

(Table 15). The high median commission error for birds (i.e., 34.2 %) suggests some overprediction for this group. However, commission errors are not as serious as omission error in

that commission errors can result from the unreporting of species that are present as well as the

absence of the species in the area (more on this below). The high commission error for birds

seen on Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge and Petite Manan Wildlife Refuge are probably
49

related to the fact that we used “confirmed breeding” rather than “occurs during the breeding

season” to create the species lists for each site. Since these areas are small and the surveys are

relatively new it is possible that the commission error is inflated because of the limiting of the

occurrence list (this question is being further investigated). Considering that the median

omission rate on checklist sites for all species classes is less than the national standard of 20%

(Table 15), ME-GAP did an excellent job of predicting the occurrence of vertebrates that

regularly breed in Maine.

Table 15. Overall results of accuracy assessment of ME-GAP predicted species distributions.

Medians and ranges for accuracy’s were calculated within taxonomic groups for site with

checklist and research data.

 Matchesa % Omission (%) Commission (%)

Taxonomic Group (n) Median Range Median Range Median Range

Checklist Sites

Amphibians (2) 100.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 –

Reptiles (2) 90.0 80.0 - 100.0 10.0 0.0 - 20.0 5.0 0.0 - 10.0

Mammals (3) 94.6 88.6 - 97.0 5.4 3.0 - 11.4 18.9 11.4 - 36.4

Birds (5) 99.3 97.1 - 100.0 0.7 0.0 - 2.9 34.2 17.4 - 69.6

Research Sites

Birds (5) 100.0 95.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - 5.0 122.2 104.1-138.2

a

 - Species predicted present that were present.

On sites with short-term field inventory data median error rates for amphibians, reptiles, and

mammals could not be calculated because the sample sizes were too small (only one site each,

Table 14). For theses classes the omission errors were 0.0 %, 0.0 %, and 3.6 % respectively.

The corresponding commission errors were 25.0 %, 57.1 %, and 53.6 % respectively (Table 14).

The median omission error for birds on research sites was 0.0 % and the median commission

error was 122.2 % (Table 15). Commission error is high for birds even though they were

checked against five different research sites. This is due to the fact that most of the surveying on

these sites focused on forest songbirds (see citations in Methods above) and thus do not

completely represent the avian fauna (i.e. raptors and waterbirds undersampled due to field

inventory methods used). In fairness to the researchers who reported these data, we note that

their study objectives generally centered on forest songbirds, and not on all birds inhabiting an

area. However, as mentioned in Methods, we could not, a priori, objectively select species they

should, and should not, have been inventoried. We also could not determine which species were

breeding on sites for four of the research projects, the Holt Research Forest was the exception,

for these sites species presence was assumed to indicate breeding on site. Again, note that the

median omission rate on research data sites for all species classes is less than the national

standard of 20% (Table 14).

While our results, especially for birds, indicates that over-prediction did occur, we believe that

the rates of commission reported above must be viewed with caution not only due to large

differences between checklist and research sites in commission errors, and the sample sizes on

research sites, but also because of the patterns suggested by the LOORs (Appendix 7).

Specifically, we know from previous research that it’s more difficult to correctly predict the
50

occurrence of species with low versus high LOORs (Boone 1996; Boone and Krohn 1999).

Thus, if the high commission errors reported above were serious, then rates of error across

species will be more or less constant regardless of LOOR scores. In contrast, if rates of

commission error and LOORs were inversely related, than a sizeable part of the high

commission error is due to inadequate field inventory (i.e., species present, but due to difficulty

in detecting, went unreported). While small sample sizes preclude us from concluding anything

about amphibians and reptiles, note that for birds and mammals commission errors decrease with

higher LOORs (Appendix 7). This relationship is seen for birds regardless of the data type

(Figures 11, 12). The peaking of the commission error curves over the low LOOR classes shows

that inadequate field surveys are having an effect on commission error. Also note that the largest

checklist sites, having the most years of observations (i.e., Acadia National Park and Moosehorn

National Wildlife Refuge), had lower total rates of commission error than the other three sites

(Table 13).
51

Number of Species

LOORs (group)

 Mount Desert Island, Moosehorn National Sunkhaze Meadows

 Acadia National Park Wildlife Refuge National Wildlife Refuge

 Rachel Carson National Petit Manan National

 Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuge

Figure 11. The number of bird species correctly modeled and the number over-predicted

(commission error) for checklist sites (long-term data) by Likelihood of Occurrence Ranks

(LOORS) (See Glossary of Terms for definition). Sites are ordered left to right by size (largest

to smallest).

Predicted species not present

(commission error)

Predicted species present

(matched)
52

Number of Species

North Maine Forestlands, North Maine Forestlands, White Mountains

 Study Area 2 Study Area 1 National Forest

 Nesowadnehunk Field, Holt Research Forest

 Bird Survey, Baxter

 State Park

Figure 12. The number of bird species correctly modeled and the number over predicted

(commission error) for research sites (short-term data) by Likelihood of Occurrence Ranks

(LOORS) (See Glossary of Terms for definition). Sites are ordered left to right by size (largest

to smallest).

Predicted species not present

(commission error)

Predicted species present

(matched)

LOORs (group)
53

Limitations and Discussion

Mapping range limits

We had anticipated prior to defining ranges that: 1) species-habitat relationships would generally

be broad in Maine, with species associated with many habitats in the state; 2) habitat patches in

Maine would be mixed and small, given the complex land-use history and ecology of the state;

and 3) relations between species distributions and factors such as elevation and hydrology would

be weaker than in western states. Because of these reasons and an interest in the biogeography

of Maine’s terrestrial vertebrates, we spent considerable time mapping the ranges of the state’s

vertebrates. We explored every source of information available to us to ensure vertebrate ranges

were accurate.

We declined to use museum records, believing that the cost in time and effort used to

computerize such sources would outweigh the value of the records. We used MDIFW Biological

Element Occurrences (what in some other states is Natural Heritage Program observations of

rare species), but the number of observations was low for many species (hundreds for Bald

Eagles, however). As an extreme example, when information for mammals was compiled

(September 1994) there were 22 element records for the 54 mammal species. Finally, we were

fortunate in being able to avoid use of the BBS data for mapping the ranges of birds. That

allowed us to use the BBS in range assessment, a practice we would recommend to others

mapping the broad-scale occurrence of many birds.

By inspecting BBAs from New Hampshire and provinces adjacent to Maine, as well as Maine

data, we were able to avoid having species ranges that coincide with areas of highest observation

effort. This has important implications for conservation planning — if that bias is strong in

species maps, areas near cities (and near observers) tend to show high species richness

inappropriately. Also, the ranges of rare species used in ME-GAP were large polygons in most

cases (see Boone and Krohn 1998a,b), rather than point locations as in some other gap analyses.

Regardless of effort in mapping, there remain dramatic differences in the amount of

distributional information available for vertebrate classes. In general, distributional information

was readily available for most bird species in Maine (e.g., Adamus 1987; MDIFW element

occurrences; BBS data for assessment), and a recent atlas of amphibians and reptiles had been

completed, summarizing five years of observations (Hunter et al. 1992). Distribution

information was abundant for game mammals (e.g., harvest information from MDIFW). The

group with the weakest distribution information, and presumably the greatest error in range

maps, was the small mammals (except for Deer and White-Footed Mice). Bat ranges are also

poorly documented, being essentially best guesses from a lean literature.

As expected, there were large variations in range information for individual species as well. For

example, the distributions of some birds (e.g., Bald Eagle) were very well known, whereas others

were poorly known (e.g., American Wigeon). These types of deficiencies are noted in individual

species reports (Boone and Krohn 1998a,b).
54

Habitat Associations

Habitat associations are not known equally for all habitats or all species. In general, forested and

wetland habitats have been well studied in Maine. For example, Stockwell (1985) studied the

abundance and distribution of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in Maine peatlands; she

also (Stockwell 1994) documented the community organization and habitat selection of breeding

birds in peatlands. In contrast, wildlife-habitat relations in agricultural (other than blueberry

fields and grasslands) and developed lands have not been intensively studied. In terms of species

groups, game and rare species have generally been better studied than the remaining species. For

example, until recently (Zimmerman 1998) there had been no studies in Maine on the

relationships of bats to their habitats. For details on what literature was available to define the

habitat relations for ME-GAP, see Boone and Krohn (1998a,b).

How terrestrial vertebrates relate to saline environments has not often been reported in the

literature. Given the extent of the Maine coastline, the variety of habitats occurring along this

coastline, and the high diversity of terrestrial vertebrates these habitats support, we would have

preferred to have better information on this subject. Relationships have to be inferred from the

relation of vertebrates to fresh water, which may or may not be appropriate in the cases of

brackish and marine environments.

Another source of error in predicting vertebrate distributions is that some habitats are more

difficult to identify and map than others (see Land Cover Classification and Mapping for details).

Brushy habitats such as abandoned farm fields, blueberry fields, regenerating forests, shrub

wetlands, and peatlands were difficult to distinguish with Landsat TM data mapping. Note that

some of the preceding brushlands are wet versus dry, and in general these two brushland types

support very different communities of wildlife. Thus, it was critical that two types be properly

mapped and we believe that the use of NWI data permitted us to adequately separate wet versus

dry brushlands. However, NWI data in digital form were unavailable for southcentral Maine at

the time of these analyses and we had to rely on estimating the locations of wetlands from TM

data (using adjacent NWI data as a training set). While this approach appeared to have been

adequate for statewide analysis, potential users of ME-GAP should be cautious about analyzing

predicted vertebrate distributions in more detail for southern Maine (Figure 5). This caution is

especially critical if wetlands, or wetland vertebrates, are the focus of analysis.

Habitat models frequently assumed that special habitat features were present even if they could

not be identified and mapped. For example, we assumed that forested habitats contained

adequate cavities for those species requiring tree cavities for critical life functions such as raising

offspring, protection from weather, and feeding. Vernal pools, a critical feature for many

amphibians, could not be mapped with TM data, but given the nature of Maine’s glaciated

landscape, were assumed to be present in forested areas, especially adjacent to waterbodies and

waterways. While these assumptions may be reasonable for the level of detail we worked at,

others interested in using predicted species distributions from ME-GAP at a more detailed level

need to consider this issue in detail (see Gibbs 1993).
55

In summary, the reliable predictions of the occurrence of terrestrial vertebrates depend upon

many factors (Krohn 1996). However, we believe that for the purposes at hand, the most critical

factors are an adequate knowledge of how a species relates to its physical environment as

represented by vegetation types, and second an ability to map those habitats at an appropriate

scale with adequate resolution. In general, we believe that the level of detail at which habitats

were mapped in this study was appropriate given what was available for knowledge on specieshabitat relations.

Accuracy Assessment

Because accuracy assessments are dependent upon so many factors, beyond the quality of the

models created, care should be used when comparing the assessments of different sets of

modeled species (i.e., for from different states). Omission and commission errors may not be

directly comparable. We have fewer rare, endemic species in Maine, for example, than in

Florida (Dobson et al. 1997), and so we should have lower omission error than those doing

modeling in Florida, regardless of the quality of models (Boone and Krohn 1999).

Our results indicate that linkage of a species habitat model and a cover map with ancillary GIS

data is a fairly reliable method of predicting the occurrence of nonfish vertebrate species. As in

other GAP projects (Scott et al. 1993, Edwards et al. 1996) commission error was much higher

than omission error, but because these errors and LOORs were directly related, we suspect that

most of the error is occurring in those species that are rare and difficult to find using standard

survey methods. In these instances the commission error is a result of incomplete inventory lists

rather than a problem with GAP, although over-prediction of rare species undoubtedly occurred

(e.g., Wood Turtle, Merlin). In a few cases it was determined that commission and omission

errors were a result of incorrect range delineation (Appendix 6). In some of these cases it was

evident that the blurring of the ranges to make the line less obvious may be the cause of the error.

The relationship of these errors to the distance from the range limit, both blurred and regular, is

being further investigated.

When looking at the two different types of available survey data (i.e. checklist and research),

overall error rates were similar whenever totals or medians were compared, with low omission

errors and high commission error. Commission, a less serious error than omission (Avery and

Van Riper 1990, Edwards et al. 1996), was related not only to the type of test site, but also to the

completeness and the size of the test site. In the sites with research data available the

commission errors were extremely high, up to 138% for the birds (Table 14). The extremeness

of this error was to be expected because research usually concentrates on a specific species or

group of species, and is done for only a few years on a small area, giving an incomplete

inventory for all of the species present.

When one compares the results of the checklist data for Moosehorn and Mount Desert Island

with Sunkhaze, Rachel Carson and Petit Manan (Table 13, Figure 11) its apparent that size and

years of inventory also influence the commission errors. The two larger study sites, with the

most complete inventory data (focusing on birds and mammals) were Moosehorn and Mount

Desert Island. These two sites exceeded the national standards for GAP for both the omission

and commission errors. The other three sites were marginal in terms of the national standards for

commission errors for birds or mammals. Overall, for all taxonomic groups, on checklist sites,

the median omission error is 0.0 % (ranges from 0.0 to 20.0%) and the median commission error
56

is 17.9 (ranges from 0.0 to 93.7 %). On research sites we exceeded the national standard for

omission error of all taxonomic groups (median = 0.0%; range = 0.0-5.0 %), but we failed to met

the national standard for all species in commission error (median = 93.3%; range = 25.0-138.2

%) (not serious considering the nature of commission verses omission error).

Although we report overall rates of error (i.e., pooling of omission and commission errors) in

Tables 13 and 14, readers should view these pooled rates with caution. When a species is

recorded in a field survey but not predicted by gap analysis (i.e., an omission error), this is a real

error. However, when gap predicts a species present but it has not been recorded in a field

inventory, than there are two possible explanations. First, the species never has and never will

occur on the test site (a real error in over-prediction by gap); second, the species occurs on the

test sites but has gone undetected by field inventories (the gap prediction of occurrence is in fact

correct). Interpretation of commission errors relative to these two explanations, and the

contribution of this type of error to overall rates, are difficult to assess. LOORs are an a priori

measure of the relative likelihood of detecting a species in a field inventory; i.e., species with

low LOORs less likely to be detected than species with high LOORS (Boone 1996; Boone and

Krohn 1999). Thus, if commission error rates are highest in those species with low LOORs,

then one has evidence that undetected species are a major contributing factor to the rate of error

(i.e., explanation three above). We reiterate our finding that because LOORs for birds and

mammals were inversely related to commission error rates, and that because commission errors

were lowest on the largest test sites having been surveyed the longest, much of commission error

came from incomplete field surveys (and the definition of “confirmed breeders” for birds on

some test sites), although some species were undoubtedly over-predicted (especially some of the

rare and uncommon ones). Over-estimation of the distribution of rare species, because these are

often of most concern to conservationists, is a serious error. We are continuing research into

LOORs and how best to report errors in the prediction of the occurrences of terrestrial

vertebrates.

In Maine, there are very few large conservation and management areas with good long term field

inventory data available for all taxonomic classes. This is especially true for the amphibians,

reptiles, and mammals that had only two to three sites with checklist data available. To obtain a

better geographical distribution of study sites, research data was included in this analysis. Using

this data type did improve our geographical distribution but it is clear that research data is

unreliable for test data because of the small size of the area sampled, the concentration on a

particular group of species (most commonly songbirds), and the short survey period.
57

LAND STEWARDSHIP

What is most striking in the Maine wilderness is the continuousness of the forest,

with fewer open intervals of glades than you had imagined.

Except the few burnt lands, the narrow intervals on the rivers,

the bare tops of the high mountains, and the lakes and streams,

the forest is uninterrupted.

Thoreau - The Maine Woods, 1848

Introduction

To fulfill the analytical mission of GAP, it is necessary to compare the mapped distribution of

elements of biodiversity with their representation in different categories of land ownership and

management. As will be explained in the Analysis section, these comparisons do not measure

viability, but are a start to assessing the likelihood of threat to a biotic element through habitat

conversion- the primary cause of biodiversity decline. We use the term “stewardship” to

encompass both land ownership and administration in recognition that ownership alone does not

necessarily reflect management policies and practices on the land. Specifically, it is necessary to

distinguish between land ownership and management status in that a single category of land

ownership, such as a National Wildlife Refuge, may contain several degrees of management for

biodiversity (i.e., administrative subunits with different land management objectives).

The purpose of comparing biotic distribution with stewardship is to provide a method by which

land stewards can assess their relative amount of responsibility for the management of a species

or plant community, and identify other stewards sharing that responsibility. This information

can reveal opportunities for cooperative management of that resource, which directly supports

the primary mission of GAP to provide objective, scientific information to decision makers and

managers to make informed decisions regarding biodiversity. It also is likely that a steward that

has previously borne the major responsibility for managing a species may, through such

analyses, identify a more equitable distribution of that responsibility. We emphasize, however,

that GAP only identifies private land as, at most, a few homogenous categories and does not

differentiate individual tracts or owners, unless land management objectives and practices

recognize a long-term commitment to biodiversity maintenance (e.g., long-term management of

natural vegetative communities on large, contiguous blocks of forestland).

After comparison to ownership, it is also necessary to compare biotic occurrence to categories of

management status. The purpose of this comparison is to identify the need for change in

management status for the distribution of individual elements or areas containing high degrees of

diversity. While it will eventually be desirable to identify specific management practices for

each tract, and whether they are beneficial or harmful to each element, GAP currently uses a

scale of one to four to denote relative degree of maintenance of biodiversity for each tract. A

status of “1” denotes the highest, most permanent level of maintenance, and “4” represents the

lowest level of biodiversity management, or unknown status. Assigning Categories is subjective,

and we recognize the limitations of this approach, although we maintained certain principles in

assigning the land management Categories. Our first principle is that land ownership is not the
58

primary determinant in assigning status. The second principle is that although data are

imperfect, and all land is subject to changes in ownership and management, we can use the intent

of a land steward as evidenced by legal and institutional factors to assign status. In other words,

if a land steward institutes a program backed by legal and institutional arrangements that are

intended for biodiversity maintenance, we use that as the guide for assigning status. The

characteristics used to assign Categories were as follows:

· Long-term protection from conversion of natural to unnatural (human-induced barren, exoticdominated) land cover.

· Relative amount of the tract managed for natural cover (the larger, the better for biodiversity

conservation).

· Inclusiveness of the management (e.g., single feature or species versus all biota).

· Type of management and degree that it is mandated through legal and institutional

arrangements.

The four status Categories can generally be defined as follows (after Scott et al. 1993, Edwards

et al. 1995, Crist et al. 1995):

Category 1: An area having long-term protection from conversion of natural land cover and a

mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which disturbance

events (of natural type, frequency, and intensity) are allowed to proceed without interference or

are mimicked through management.

Category 2: An area having long-term protection from conversion of natural land cover and a

mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which may

receive use or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities

(e.g., manipulation of water levels that alter aquatic plant communities).

Category 3: An area where long-term maintenance of natural land cover on the majority of the

area is a major management objective, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, lowintensity type or localized intense type. In ME-GAP, these multiple-use lands were subdivided

into public (3a) and private (3b) categories recognizing broad-scale forestry as a major land-use

significant in maintaining the state’s biodiversity.

Category 4: Lack of irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion of natural habitat

types to anthropogenic habitat types. Allows for intensive use throughout the tract. Also

includes those tracts for which the existence of such restrictions or sufficient information to

establish a higher status is unknown.

Mapping Standards

The starting point for our identification and mapping of land stewardship was the 1:250,000-

scale maps of Maine’s conservation lands published and revised by Kelly (1989, 1993). We remapped these land parcels by US Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 quadrangles, adding

corrections and new conservation lands up to 1995. In addition to the private land trusts (defined
59

in Glossary of Terms) from Kelly’s 1993 edition, additional land trusts were added along with

public lands such as cemeteries, golf courses, lighthouses, town parks and school yards. The

additions of these nonconservation public lands were not exhaustive, but attempted to identify

the major open spaces in and around cities and major towns to help in the creation of the habitat

map. This database is referred to as the Conservation and Public Lands Database (CAPLD);

details on CAPLD, such as coding and quality controls, are in Krohn and Kelly (1997).

We did not use a standard Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU) as such, although generally parcels

of less than 100 hectares (ha) (277 acres) were excluded, meaning that boat launches,

playgrounds, small land trusts, and many other parcels of lands were excluded. However,

because we were interested in conducting a statewide analysis, the omission of small private and

public parcels is not serious. No attempt was made to verify the positional accuracy of land

parcels, other than mapping ownership boundaries to the maximum degree possible with

coincident features such as townships, roads, waterbodies, and watercourses that were in our

GIS.

Methods

Land ownership and administrative units are two central themes underlying gap analysis. Major

landowners in Maine include lands held in fee title or easement by the federal government, the

State of Maine, Native Americans, and large blocks of forestland generally under corporate

ownership (i.e., Commercial Forestland). In Maine, land management status generally

corresponds well with land ownership. However, administrative units within the same

ownership (e.g., Wilderness Areas within federal lands) had to be identified and mapped as

management of these units differed from management on the unit as a whole. Identification of

these administrative units is discussed in more detail below.

Ownership Mapping

Land ownership information for Maine was obtained by joining (1) CAPLD, built by the Maine

State Planning Office (SPO) and the Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

(MCFWRU) (Krohn and Kelly 1997); and (2) an outline of commercial forestland ownership

modified from a map, “Major Land Ownership, 1995” created by James W. Sewall Company,

Old Town, Maine.

In 1989, R.D. Kelly, Maine SPO published the first compilation of maps of state and federal

conservation lands in Maine. This compilation was a set of nondigital, 1:250,000-scale color

maps with a supporting publication (Kelly 1989). In 1993, revised maps were released. The

revisions, along with new documentation, included some municipal and private conservation

lands as well as more state and federal conservation areas (Kelly 1993). James W. Sewall

Company digitized the 1989 maps and the Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems

(MOGIS) made these data available. The 1993 revised maps were not added to the 1989 digital

database.
60

In 1996, the SPO and MCFWRU agreed to revise and digitize the 1993 Kelly maps to build a

conservation and public lands database suitable for statewide use at a 1:100,000 scale (i.e., create

CAPLD). The SPO was responsible for contacting agencies and organizations to obtain

information on the locations of conservation and public lands, and to do the cartographic work

on hard copy maps, whereas the MCFWRU was responsible for digitizing the maps and building

the attribute database (Krohn and Kelly 1997). The database was created with USGS 1:100,000

quadrangles as building blocks. Township lines, and hydrologic and transportation features were

used as boundaries for land parcels wherever appropriate. Township data were obtained from

MOGIS, whereas hydrology and transportation data were obtained from the USGS. Hydrology,

along with transportation data, are 1:100,000-scale digital line graph (DLG) data which include

rivers, streams, brooks, lakes, ponds, coastal waters and transportation data, including roads,

railroads, trails, transmission lines, and pipelines.

Each 1:100,000-scale map went through at least two cycles of review and revision between the

MCFWRU and the SPO. A final check on parcel name, general location, and ownership was

made by comparing our maps to other published information (for details, see Krohn and Kelly

1997). CAPLD was distributed to selected users in 1997 and based on errors found by these

groups, especially the Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and ourselves, final

revisions were made in the spring of 1998. Finally, CAPLD was joined to an outline of the

commercial forestland using ArcEdit, a module of ARC/INFO Version 7.1 (Windows NT)

(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA; use of trade names does

not imply endorsement by the US Government). Slivers created from polygons that did not

edge-match were removed by joining the commercial forestland ownership to CAPLD (i.e.,

CAPLD’s detail was retained because it was the finer-scale data).

Management Categorization

Categories and definitions of management status used by ME-GAP were modified from the

categories and definitions developed by GAP (see above). To assure consistency, one person

(WBK) assigned management Categories to each ownership, and to each appropriate

administrative unit within ownerships. Because management objectives for some administrative

units were difficult to interpret, land managers for individual land owning agencies and

organizations were contacted when needed. Management Categories were not assigned to open,

standing water (lakes, ponds, ocean) because water is managed under a different set of laws then

land, and because water makes-up a significant portion of Maine. For analytical convenience,

however, running water and wetlands were assumed to have the same management status as the

lands in which these features are embedded. Example assignments of management Categories

by major landowners are shown in Table 16.
61

Table 16. Example designation of land management Categories in Maine.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3a Category 4

Acadia National Park

Baxter State Park

(excluding scientific

forestry area)

Maine Chapter of The

Nature Conservancy

lands

Wilderness areas of

National Wildlife

Refuges

Land Trust without

extensive manipulation

of vegetation

Scientific forestry area of

Baxter State Park

Land Trusts with small

forestry operations

State Wildlife Management

Areas (except for coastal

islands which were

coded “1”).

Non-wilderness areas of

National Wildlife

Refuges

Undevelopedb

 State Parks

Forestland of the Maine

Bureau of Parks and

Lands

Non-wilderness areas of

National Forests

Developeda

 State Parks

Category 3b

Commercial forestlandb

Native American Forestland

Agricultural lands

Most military

lands

Most state historic

sites

Most private lands

a

 - See text below for discussion.

b

 - See Glossary of Terms for a definition.

In some cases, a parcel of land under one ownership had more than one type of management and

thus administrative units corresponding to these management differences had to be identified and

mapped. For example, the northwestern corner of Baxter State Park is a conservatively managed

forest and thus coded as management Category “2” whereas the rest of the park is code “1”

(Table 16). Similarly, formally designated Wilderness Areas on federal lands were coded “1”

whereas the remaining land under the same ownership, say a National Wildlife Refuge, was

designated as “2.” State Wildlife Management Areas, because active manipulation of water and

vegetation is regularly practiced by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

(MDIFW), were coded as “2.” Coastal islands owned and managed by the MDIFW, because

vegetation is not actively managed, received “1” codes. Lands managed by the Maine Bureau of

Parks and Lands (MBPL) as multiple-use forestland (i.e., Public Reserved Lands) were coded as

“3a,”except for those areas within parcels that had specially designated and protected stands of

trees (e.g., old-growth conifers), which were coded as “2”. State Parks, also managed by MBPL,

were especially problematic to categorize. In general, small parks with facilities developed for

recreation were coded as “3a”; large, less developed parks were coded “2.” Forestland owned

and managed by the Penobscot Indian Nation were code “3b” whereas their islands in the

Penobscot River north of Old Town, Maine, because little vegetation is removed from these

islands (except that fiddlehead ferns are harvested in early spring), are codes “2.” High

recreational use of the waters around the islands during some times of the year precluded coding

these lands as “1.” Thus, coding of management Categories required fairly detailed knowledge

of management policies and practices not only by agencies and organizations, but also by

individual parcels within an ownership.
62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-200 201-500 501-1000 1001-5000 5000-10000 >10001

Size Classes

% of Polygons

State (n = 1,179)

Federal (n = 279)

Private (n = 299)

Results

Only 5.5% of Maine is in conservation ownership with 5.3% of this in public lands and

approximately 0.2% in private conservation lands (Table 17). Of the 5.3% in public ownership,

approximately 1% is under federal, 0.1% under municipal, and 4.2% under state jurisdiction

(Table 17). The large amount of state ownership is largely due to Baxter State Park, almost 0.1%

of the state. MBPL, Department of Conservation, manages the largest amount (2.7%) of public

land in the state. While most of the MBPL’s lands are multiple-use forestland in township-sized

blocks (93.2 km2 [36 mi2]) in eastern and northern Maine, this agency also manages historic

sites and state parks throughout the state (Map 5). Private conservation lands represent

approximately 0.2% of Maine, although we estimate this figure to be low by a factor of 2 (see

below). Private commercial forest companies own approximately 50% of Maine, and Native

Americans own, in forestland, slightly more than 1.2% of the state. The northwestern portion of

the state has few conservation lands (Map 5, Appendix 9). The majority of Maine’s conservation

lands are in parcels W 200 ha (554 ac) in size, and this pattern was consistent across federal,

state, and private ownerships (Figure 13). With the exceptions of Acadia National Park, Baxter

State Park, Big Reed Pond (owned by the TNC), and the Public Reserve Lands of MBPL, there

are no conservation lands in Maine in township-sized blocks.

Figure 13. Frequency distribution of sizes (ha) of conservation and public lands

in Maine by major land ownership.
63

Table 17. Number of polygons, total area (ha), percent (%) of total area, and percent (%) of

lands in Maine by ownership. The bolded categories represent the broad ownership. The

“Other” category includes many private lands; however, small land trusts, conservation

easements, and municipal lands are also included.

Land Ownership Number of Total % of Maine’s % of Ownership

Polygons Area Total Area Type

Federal 278 80,224 0.95 14.19

US Department of Agriculture 16 21,322 0.25 3.77

 Forest Service 16 21,322 0.25 3.77

US Department of Defense 8 9,542 0.11 2.32

 Air Force 6 4,369 0.05 0.90

 Navy 2 5,172 0.06 1.42

US Department of the Interior 252 49,360 0.58 8.73

 Fish and Wildlife Service 92 17,566 0.21 3.11

 National Park Service 160 31,907 0.38 5.64

Others 2 0 0.00 0.03

Native American 249 102,998 1.22 18.22

Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe 47 47,998 0.57 8.49

Penobscot Indian Nation 199 54,774 0.65 9.69

Othersb 3 226 0 .04

State 1182 353,862 4.19 62.59

Baxter State Park 30 83,459 0.99 14.76

Maine Department of Conservation 880 230,344 2.72 40.74

 Bureau of Parks and Lands 877 230,158 2.72 40.71

 Public Reserved Lands 768 209,693 2.48 37.17

 Historic Sites, Parks 109 20,465 0.24 3.53

Maine Forest Service 3 186 0 .04

Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 244 35,466 0.42 6.28

Maine Department of Transportation 7 424 0.01 0.07

University of Maine, Orono 21 4,169 0.05 0.74

Others 0 0 0 0

Municipal 118 10,249 0.12 1.81

Private 299 18,042 0.21 3.19

Forest Society of Maine 2 388 0.00 0.00

Maine Audubon Society 15 367 0.00 0.06

Maine Coast Heritage Trust 29 3,551 0.04 0.00

National Audubon Society 14 345 0.00 0.06

The Nature Conservancy 139 10,291 0.12 1.82

Others 100 3,100 0.04 0.00

Subtotal 2126 565,375 6.69 100.00

Commercial Forestland 4,228,283 49.88

Other Lands 3,244,548 38.38

Open waterc 415,654 4.92

State Total 8,453,860 100 a - Administratively, Moosehorn NWR can be counted as one administrative unit but in this analysis counted as 2

parcels (i.e., polygons representing Baring and Edmunds units).

b - Houlton Band of Maliseets and Aroostook Band of Micmacs who own little forestland. c - Defined as lakes, ponds and rivers in USGS Digital Line Graph data at 1:100,000 scale.

“(see Map 5)”
nservation and public land

nership from Maine State Planning

ice and Maine Cooperative Fish

d Wildlife Research Unit.

tline of commercial forestlands

apted from map by James W. Sewall

mpany, Old Town, Maine.

duced by the Main Cooperative Fish

nd Wildlife Research Unit

GS Biological Resources Division

nd the

partment of Wildlife Ecology

iversity of Maine, Orono

p produced:

June 1998

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 19

1927 North American Datum, Clarke 1866 Spheroid

FEDERAL

USDA Forest Service

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

STATE

Baxter State Park

MDOC Bureau of Parks

 and Lands

Public Reserved Lands

Historic Sites, Parks

Maine Department of Inland

 Fisheries and Wildlife

Other State lands

MUNICIPAL LANDS

Town forests and other municipal

 conservation lands

PRIVATE CONSERVATION

ORGANIZATIONS

The Nature Conservancy

Main Coast Heritage Trust

Forest Society of Maine

Maine Audubon Society

Land trusts and other prvate

 conservation lands

PRIVATE LANDS

Commercial forestlands
64

Most conservation lands in Maine are unconnected to other conservation lands (with some

exceptions of narrow, regulated riparian/shoreline/wetland strips). However, note how the

Appalachian Trail connects a variety of federal, state, and private lands from the ME-NH border

in the western part of the state to Mount Katahdin in central Maine (Map 5). In addition to this

linking function, the Appalachian Trail directly protects many rare ecological communities,

especially plants (MNAP 1998). Consideration is being given to extending the trail through

Maine northeast into the highlands of the Gaspé Peninsula, Quebec. In general, conservation

lands in Maine would become isolated islands if Commercial Forestlands were converted to

more intensive land uses (Maps 5 and 6). Thus, a major policy issue is how to keep large blocks

of forestland functioning in such a way that they continue to provide biodiversity as well as

economic benefits into the future.

Table 18 shows the percent and size (km2 ) of each management Category, excluding open water

which makes up 4.9% (4,157 km2) of the state. Less than 3% (2,413 km2) of the state of Maine

falls within Category 1 and 2 lands (Table 18). With the exception of Baxter State Park (835

km2), these lands are small (W 80 km2) and scattered. The majority of Category 1 land consists

of Baxter State Park (1%) and lands managed by the USDI National Park Service (0.2%) (Map

6). Category 2 land consists of lands managed by the state of Maine (mostly MBPL and MDIFW

lands), and the federal government (mostly NWR’s and a National Forest), and several other

small owners. Category 1 and 2 lands combined include one National Forest, around 45 Wildlife

Management Areas, four National Wildlife Refuges, two corridors (i.e. Appalachian Trail

Corridor and the Penobscot River Corridor), approximately 25 State Parks, 73 Preserves, one

National Park, and many other small conservation areas. In contrast, the state is made-up of

over 92% Category 3 and 4 lands (Table 18). Category 3a and 3b make-up approximately 54%

of the state and include mainly privately owned commercial forestland (50%), Public Reserved

Lands (2.2%), and Native American lands (1.2%). The other 38% of the state is Category 4 in

which 0.1% is in public ownership (i.e., historic sites, public lands, and recreational areas) and

the rest is in private ownership (Table 18).

“(see Map 6)”
nservation and public land

nership from Maine State Planning

ice and Maine Cooperative Fish

 Wildlife Research Unit.

tline of commercial forestlands

pted from map by James W. Sewall

mpany, Old Town, Maine.

duced by the Main Cooperative Fish

d Wildlife Research Unit

GS Biological Resources Division

d the

partment of Wildlife Ecology

versity of Maine, Orono

p produced:

une 1998

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 19

1927 North American Datum, Clarke 1866 Spheroid

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3a

Category 3b

Category 4
Table 18. Percent (%) and size (km2 ) of land management Categories by major ownerships in Maine, 1995.

Land Management Categories

Land Ownership 1 2 3a 3b 4 Total

 %

%

 km2 % km2 % km2 % km 2 % km2 % km2

Federal 0.3 224 0.4 316 0.3 263 0.0 0 0.0 41 1.0 884

US Department of Agriculture 0.1 46 0.0 0 0.2 167 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.3 213

 Forest Service 0.1 46 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 46

US Department of Defense 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 96 0.0 0 0.0 36 0.2 132

 Air Force 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 44 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 44

 Navy 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 52 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 52

US Department of the Interior 0.2 178 0.4 316 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 495

 Fish and Wildlife Service 0.0 39 0.2 135 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 174

 National Park Service 0.2 139 0.2 180 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.4 319

Other 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.0 4

Native Americana 0.0 0 0.0 19 1.2 1,011 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 1,031

 Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 480 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 480

 Penobscot Indian Nation 0.0 0 0.0 19 0.6 529 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 549

State 0.9 753 1.1 902 2.2 1,883 0.0 0 0.0 18 4.2 3,556

 Baxter State Park 0.8 714 0.1 120 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.0 835

 Maine Department of Conservation 0.0 20 0.5 439 2.2 1,843 0.0 0 0.0 9 2.7 2,311

 Bureau of Parks and Lands 0.0 20 0.5 439 2.2 1,841 0.0 0 0.0 8 2.8 2,308

 Public Reserved Lands 0.0 19 0.5 420 2.1 1,813 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.7 2,252

 Historic Sites, Parks 0.0 1 0.0 19 0.1 28 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1 49

ME Dept. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 0.0 9 0.4 341 0.0 4 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 355

Maine Department of Transportation 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 7

University of Maine, Orono 0.0 10 0.0 0 0.0 31 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.1 45

Other 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 3

Municipal 0.0 1 0.0 18 0.1 84 0.0 0 0.0 14 0.1 117

Private 0.2 156 0.0 24 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 181

Forest Society of Maine 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4

Maine Audubon Society 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3

Maine Coast Heritage Trust 0.0 34 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 35

National Audubon Society 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3

The Nature Conservancy 0.1 101 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 103

Others 0.0 14 0.0 14 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 29

Subtotal 1.3 1,134 1.5 1,279 3.8 3,242 0.0 0 0.1 74 6.8 5,729

Commercial Forestland 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 50.0 42,283 0.0 0 50.0 42,283

Other Lands 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 38.3 32,370 38.3 32,370

Total (km2

) 1.3 1,134 1.5 1,279 3.8 3,242 50.0 42,283 38.4 32,444 95.1b 80,381

a

 - Excludes Houlton Band of Maliseets and Aroostook Band of Micmacs who own little forestland.

b

 - Excluding open water [415,654 km2 (Table 17)] which is not a land management Category.

65
66

The distribution of lands in Maine by elevation and management Categories is as follows:

Table 19. Area (km2) and percent (%) of five elevation ranges (m) across land management

Categories.

Elevation

(m)

Categories

1 & 2

Categories

3a & 3b

Category 4 Open Water Total

km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 %

1 - 200 947 1.1 13,527 16.0 27,333 32.3 2,277 2.7 44,084 51.6

201 – 500 1,005 1.2 26,090 30.8 6,131 7.3 1,508 1.8 34,734 41.1

501 – 700 232 0.3 3,886 4.6 222 0.8 33 .04 4,373 5.7

701 – 1000 171 0.2 1,111 1.3 13 0.0 3 0.0 1,298 1.5

> 1000 49 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 49 0.1

Total (km2) 2,404 2.9 44,614 52.7 33,699 39.8 3,821 4.5 84,538 100

Approximately, 4.5% of Maine is open water; of the remaining land area, less than 3% is in

management Category 1 and 2, almost 53% in Category 3, and the remainder in Category 4

(Table 19). Of the 2.9% in Category 1 and 2, most of this land (2.3%) area is at or below 500 m

above mean sea level and, multiple-use lands (i.e., Category 3) are also mostly at or below 500 m

(46.8 of 52.7%) (Table 19).

Accuracy Assessment

No formal accuracy assessment was performed of the land ownership or of the land management

databases. However, CAPLD was built with a rigorous quality control procedure and compared

to published sources, as well as given exposure to users for a year and then revised based on user

comments.

Limitations and Discussion

In addition to not mapping small (< 40.5 ha [100 ac]) ownerships of private and public

conservation lands, and not all public lands (e.g.; schools, universities, municipal and state

facilities) were mapped. Also, we made no attempt to identify and map quasi-government lands

such as water district lands. Obviously, small parcels of conservation lands and water district

lands, and even some nonconservation public lands, do help to conserve biodiversity, especially

in the more developed portions of Maine. However, these small parcels are inconsequential in a

statewide analysis.

In 1995, Maine had 72 land trusts that conserved a total of 36,557 ha (90,332 ac) in 720 parcels

(40% in 344 parcels that were owned; 60% in 376 parcels in easements) (MCHT and MLTN

1998). In comparison, CAPLD contained 35 land trusts totaling only 18,042 ha (44,582 ac) in

299 parcels (Table 17). Thus, ME-GAP captured approximately 50% of the lands under trusts in

Maine. In addition, not all conservation easements managed by private and public organizations

were mapped; the state is currently creating an easement database. Finally, although we believe

the Native American reservation and trust lands (i.e., title held by the federal government)
67

managed for forestry to be relatively complete, not all fee title lands owned by Native Americans

(versus title held by the federal government) were mapped, mainly due to rapidly changing

ownerships. However, the preceding limitations are not serious for the statewide analyses at

hand, given the small sizes of the parcels not included.

Maintaining and updating the land ownership map of recent land acquisitions, consolidations,

and exchanges within the state is not one of the goals of ME-GAP. Our purpose was to produce,

as accurate as possible, a snapshot of major land ownership and management status in Maine

during 1995. Information on land ownership and administrative units are expected to be as

accurate and current as the sources upon which they were based. However, boundary

information was not readily accessible for some small parcels, and even when available,

positional accuracy of land parcels was not assessed. Thus, these data on land ownership and

management status should in no way be considered as legal documentations, but are adequate for

the purpose at hand (i.e., statewide biodiversity assessment).
68

ANALYSIS BASED ON OWNERSHIP AND

MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

We have an account in the newspapers of every cow and calf that is run over,

but not of the various wild creatures... It may be many generations

before the partridges learn to give the cars a sufficiently wide berth.

Thoreau - Journal, 1858

Introduction

As described in the Introduction of this report, the primary objective of GAP is to provide

information on the distribution and status of several elements of biological diversity. This is

accomplished by first producing: maps of land cover, predicted distributions for selected animal

species, and land ownership and management (see previous chapter for details). Intersecting the

land ownership and management maps with the distribution of the elements results in tables that

summarize the area and percent of total mapped distribution of each element in different land

stewardship and management Categories. The data are provided in a format that allows users to

carry out inquires about the representation of each element in different land ownership and

management Categories as appropriate to their own management objectives. This forms the

basis of GAP’s mission, which is to provide land owners and managers with the information

necessary to conduct informed policy development, planning, and management for biodiversity

maintenance.

Although GAP "seeks to identify habitat types and species not adequately represented in the

current network of biodiversity management areas" (GAP Handbook), it is unrealistic to create a

standard definition of "adequate representation" for either land cover types or individual

vertebrate species (Noss et al. 1995). A practical solution to this problem is to report both

percentages and absolute area of each type or species in biodiversity management areas and

allow the user to determine which types are adequately represented in natural areas. There are

many other factors that should be considered in such determinations such as (a) historic loss or

gain in distribution, (b) nature of the spatial distribution, (c) immediate versus long term risk, and

(d) degree of local adaptation among populations of the biotic elements that are worthy of

individual conservation consideration. Such analyses are beyond the scope of this project, but

we encourage their application coupled with field confirmation of the mapped distributions. As

a coarse indicator of the status of the elements, gap analyses traditionally provide breakdowns

along three levels of representation (10%, 20%, and 50%) that have been recommended in the

literature as necessary amounts of conservation (Noss and Cooperider 1994, Noss 1991, Odum

and Odum1972, Specht et al. 1974).

The network of Conservation Data Centers (CDCs) and Natural Heritage Programs (NHPs)

established cooperatively by The Nature Conservancy and various state agencies maintain

detailed databases on the locations of rare elements of biodiversity. In Maine, data on rare plants

is maintained by the Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation (MDOC), and

rare animal data is maintained by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

(MDIFW). GAP cooperatively uses these data to develop predicted distributions of potentially
69

suitable habitat for these elements (e.g., Appendix 8), which may be valuable for identifying

research needs and preliminary considerations for restoration or reintroduction. Conservation of

such elements, however, is best accomplished through the fine-filter approach of the above

organizations. It is not the role of GAP to duplicate or disseminate Heritage Program or CDC

Element Occurrence Records. Users interested in more specific information about the location,

status, and ecology of populations of such species are directed to MDOC (for plants) and

MDIFW (for animals).

Currently, land cover types and terrestrial vertebrates are the primary focus of GAP's mapping

efforts; however, other components of biodiversity, such as aquatic organisms or selected groups

of invertebrates may be incorporated into GAP distributional data sets. Where appropriate, GAP

data may also be analyzed to identify the location of a set of areas in which most or all land

cover types or species are predicted to be represented. The use of “complementarity” (i.e., an

approach that additively identifies a selection of locations that may represent biodiversity) and

“representational” (i.e., an approach that statistically compares factors of importance to

biodiversity on and off conservation lands to see how well conservation lands represent an area’s

landscape) analyses, rather than “hot spots of species richness” may prove more effective for

guiding biodiversity maintenance efforts (Kiester et al. 1996, Pressey et al. 1993, Williams et al.

1996, Csuti et al.1997).

Land Cover Analysis

All anthropogenic types of land cover mapped in ME-GAP are included in Agricultural and

Developed lands. Agricultural Lands, namely Blueberry Fields, Grasslands (pastures, hayfields,

and lawns), and Abandoned Fields, although important wildlife habitats in Maine, are highly

modified habitats, and in the case of Abandoned Fields, are transitory (i.e., without management

they quickly grow into forests). Developed Lands are also clearly not natural plant communities,

and approximately 98 % of these lands occur on nonconservation private ownerships (Tables 20

and 21). Clearcuts and other types of managed forests, although the result of human activities

(i.e., forest management), must be included in habitat analyses because they are successional

stages, or special structural types (e.g., partial cuts have lower stems densities than unmanaged

forests of the same cover type), of natural communities. Standing water (mostly lakes and

ponds), although constituting a significant part of Maine’s area (4.5 %; Table 19), is managed

under different laws and regulations than land, and hence is excluded from analysis in this report

(although conservation analysis of aquatic habitats is an important conservation need). Wetlands,

another significant part of the Maine landscape (9.7%, Table 2), although managed under

different laws and regulations than upland habitats (i.e., state and federal wetland regulations),

are included in this analysis due to their importance to the vertebrates mapped in ME-GAP.

Note that the percentages of vegetation and land cover types across major land ownerships in

Tables 20 and 21 each total to 100 %. Tabulation by rows is useful when showing how habitats

are distributed across ownerships. However, one may also be interested in distribution of

habitats within ownership types. Tabulation by column uses the same area figures of Tables 20

and 21, but in this case, percentages are calculated down the table (Tables 22 and 23). Note that

in Tables 20 through 23 the amount of Open Water differs when totaled across versus down the

table. These differences are small and are due to the horizontal (i.e., row) data being based on
70

USGS DLGs whereas the vertical (i.e., column) data are from Landsat TM. Because TM does an

excellent job of mapping open water (i.e., very low reflectance and hence a very distinctive

class), and because the TM data were more recent and a finer resolution than the 1:100,000 scale

DLGs, we believe that the TM data to be the more accurate of the two sets of Open Water data.

However, because the Conservation and Public Lands Database was built with coincident

features from the USGS DLGs (Krohn and Kelly 1997), tabulations of land areas where Open

Water is excluded (e.g., Table 18) are all based on the Open Water (i.e., lakes, ponds, and rivers)

as defined by the USGS DLGs.

Description of Land Cover Analysis

Appendix 10 provides the area in km2 of each vegetation and land cover type by land

management Categories and land ownerships. A gap analysis typically assumes that the higher

the percentage of a plant communities’ distribution that is on Category 1 and 2 lands, the more

secure that plant community is from a conservation perspective. Unfortunately, this typical gap

analysis has limited application under Maine conditions for three reasons. First, as documented

under Land Stewardship, only 2.8 % of the state’s area is in Category 1 and 2 lands, making

essentially all vegetation and land cover types very poorly represented on lands in these two

management Categories. Second, upland types are so broadly defined as to have limited merit in

terms of conservation planning. For example, Deciduous Forests include many types of plant

communities, including Beech Forests, Beech Maple Forests, and Northern Deciduous Forests.

Even within the Northern Hardwood Forest type, recent field studies have demonstrated

significant geographical variation across Maine that is of conservation interest [see Appendix C

by S. C. Gawler in McMahon (1998)]. In terms of Wetlands, again geographic variation of

conservation significance is suggested by an analysis of the Dwarf Shrub Bog type (an even

more specific types than used by ME-GAP) (McMahon 1998: Appendix C). In addition, gap

analysis of water and wetlands by land management Categories 1 and 2 are not very informative

given that wetlands, as well as shorelands, come under a complex set of federal, state and local

regulations distinct from what is applicable to upland types.

While we believe that the data in Appendix 10 are not widely useful for gap analyses of plant

communities, they are useful for answering other habitat questions. For example, Abandoned

Field is an important habitat for many game species (e.g., American Woodcock, Ruffed Grouse,

White-tailed Deer). This habitat type is a successional stage of forestlands and without active

management (e.g., clearcutting to stimulate re-growth) quickly grows to pole-sized forests used

by some other species of wildlife. Assuming that Category 1 lands can not be actively managed

(i.e., clearcut), a question that can be answered by Appendix 10 is how much Abandoned Field

can be potentially managed on private versus public lands? A quick look at the Abandoned Field

data in Appendix 10:2 clearly shows that management of this type must involve the active

cooperative of private landowners. Similarly, Fresh Emergent Wetland supports Maine’s rarest

waterbirds and high densities of nongame as well as game species (especially aquatic furbearers

and waterfowl). As can be seem in Appendix 10:7, although 4.6 % (33 km2) of this type occurs

on Category 1 and 2 lands, approximately 50 % (357.8 km2) is on Commercial Forestlands, again

pointing to the need for cooperative management with private landowners.
Table 20. Percent (%) and area (km2

) of vegetation and land cover types across major land ownerships.

Federal Native State Private Commercial Other Private Open Total

American Conservation Forestland and Municipal Watera

_________ ____________ ___________ ___________ _____________ _____________ __________ ___________

Cover Type % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 0.5 29.0 0.2 11.1 0.7 44.0 0.1 7.3 6.5 399.5 91.8 5,665.5 0.2 12.4 100 6,168.6

Abandoned Field 2.2 4.5 0.2 0.3 1.8 3.6 0.1 0.2 17.9 36.1 77.6 156.2 0.1 0.3 100 201.2

Blueberry Field 1.8 2.4 0.5 0.6 3.5 4.7 0.8 1.1 35.0 46.8 58.2 77.8 0.1 0.1 100 133.6

Grasslands 0.3 15.3 0.1 6.0 0.6 27.8 0.1 5.1 5.2 245.9 93.5 4,413.2 0.1 5.8 100 4,719.2

Crops/Ground 0.6 6.8 0.4 4.1 0.7 7.7 0.1 0.9 6.3 70.6 91.4 1,018.3 0.5 6.1 100 1,114.6

Forestlands 1.0 644.2 1.3 868.0 4.6 2,979.7 0.2 122.9 56.3 36,330.4 36.3 23,428.8 0.2 108.8 100 64,482.9

Clearcut 0.3 4.1 0.9 11.2 1.6 20.4 0.2 2.4 68.3 868.4 28.5 363.0 0.2 2.6 100 1,272.3

Early Regeneration 0.2 9.3 1.2 66.9 1.8 94.3 0.1 3.6 80.0 4,296.3 16.7 894.8 0.1 4.3 100 5,369.6

Late Regeneration 0.5 13.3 1.7 48.8 2.5 73.8 0.2 4.5 65.5 1,916.7 29.6 864.6 0.1 4.0 100 2,925.6

Light Partial Cut 0.9 10.1 1.0 11.2 4.4 50.6 0.1 1.2 59.8 680.0 33.7 382.9 0.1 1.4 100 1,137.4

Heavy Partial Cut 0.4 6.6 1.3 20.4 2.3 35.6 0.2 2.5 64.5 990.1 31.2 479.4 0.1 1.3 100 1,536.1

Deciduous Forest 1.2 159.3 1.6 200.5 5.1 649.0 0.1 14.2 55.1 7,066.7 36.8 4,717.1 0.1 11.8 100 12,818.7

Decid./conif. Forest 0.8 112.5 1.0 133.2 4.9 655.6 0.2 23.0 50.8 6,846.6 42.3 5,698.6 0.1 16.8 100 13,486.3

Conif./decid. Forest 1.0 171.2 1.4 256.6 4.9 875.4 0.2 31.5 50.2 9,037.6 42.2 7,608.9 0.2 39.1 100 18,020.3

Coniferous Forest 2.0 157.7 1.5 119.2 6.6 524.9 0.5 40.0 58.5 4,628.0 30.6 2,419.6 0.3 27.3 100 7,916.6

Water & Wetlands 0.8 103.8 1.1 145.6 3.6 461.8 0.4 47.8 35.8 4,599.3 29.1 3,736.9 29.2 3,754.8 100 12,850.0

Deciduous Forested 1.0 7.5 1.0 7.2 4.0 29.5 0.3 2.0 26.5 194.7 66.6 490.5 0.6 4.7 100 736.1

Coniferous Forested 0.8 30.2 1.8 69.5 4.3 168.4 0.5 18.0 65.3 2,539.1 27.1 1,055.2 0.3 10.6 100 3,891.0

Dead-forest 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 7.1 2.0 0.3 0.1 41.9 11.7 47.0 13.1 1.6 0.5 100 27.9

Decid. Scrub-shrub 1.3 18.5 1.7 23.8 5.7 78.6 0.4 5.9 51.2 708.9 37.3 515.6 2.4 32.8 100 1,384.1

Conif. Scrub-shrub 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.5 7.3 11.5 0.5 0.7 55.7 87.1 31.9 49.8 2.2 3.4 100 156.3

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.2 0.5 49.8 0.6 2.4 0.0 100 1.2

Fresh Aquatic Bed 6.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 52.1 0.7 39.0 0.6 100 1.4

Fresh Emergent 1.0 7.4 2.0 14.6 5.6 40.4 0.3 2.0 49.9 358.3 36.8 264.3 4.4 31.8 100 718.8

Peatland 1.7 8.0 1.7 8.1 6.3 29.5 1.8 8.4 61.3 289.9 25.9 122.3 1.4 6.5 100 472.7

Wet Meadow 3.1 5.3 2.2 3.7 9.0 15.3 0.2 0.4 41.6 70.7 34.3 58.3 9.6 16.4 100 170.0

Salt Aquatic Bed 2.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.4 1.4 2.8 0.1 0.3 95.0 187.1 0.0 0.0 100 196.9

Salt Emergent 11.2 9.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 10.1 2.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 70.5 56.5 3.6 2.9 100 80.2

Mudflat 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.2 96.1 226.8 2.1 5.0 100 236.1

Sand Shore 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 97.0 30.5 0.1 0.0 100 31.5

Gravel Shore 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 16.9 6.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 5.3 25.9 9.6 42.8 16.0 100 37.3

Rock Shore 3.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 4.1 2.6 1.6 9.2 5.8 42.1 26.8 36.1 22.9 100 63.5

Shallow Water 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.7 4.2 6.2 0.3 0.5 38.7 56.8 25.8 37.9 28.6 42.0 100 146.7

Open Watera 0.1 6.5 0.3 14.4 1.2 55.5 0.1 3.1 6.0 268.9 13.1 591.0 79.1 3,558.8 100 4,498.2

Developed Lands 0.9 10.1 0.3 3.5 0.5 5.0 0.1 0.9 12.2 130.0 85.8 914.6 0.2 1.9 100 1,066.0

Sparse Residential 0.8 5.7 0.5 3.3 0.6 4.4 0.1 0.7 17.3 119.6 80.4 555.5 0.2 1.5 100 690.6

Dense Residential 1.2 4.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.2 2.8 9.9 95.6 336.5 0.1 0.4 100 352.2

Urban/Industrial 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.6 14.9 0.1 0.0 100 14.9

Highways/Runways 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.5 93.7 7.7 0.2 0.0 100 8.2

Other 20.8 13.6 0.0 0.0 58.5 38.3 0.2 0.1 3.8 2.5 16.3 10.7 0.3 0.2 100 65.5

Alpine Tundra 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 88.9 18.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100 20.6

Exposed Rock/Talus 28.6 12.9 0.0 0.0 44.5 20.0 0.3 0.1 2.3 1.0 23.8 10.7 0.5 0.2 100 44.9

a - Open Water (cover type) and Open Water (ownership) classes do not correspond exactly due to differences in data sources (i.e., TM vertically vs. USGS horizontally), class definitions, and data

resolution.

71
Table 21. Percent (%) and area (km2

) of vegetation and land cover types across land management Categories.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3a Category 3b Category 4 Open Watera Total

______________ _______________ ______________ ______________ _____________ ____________ ____________

Cover Type % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 0.3 19.2 0.6 36.9 0.6 38.4 6.5 399.6 91.8 5,663.4 0.2 11.1 100 6,168.6

Abandoned Field 0.4 0.8 2.6 5.3 1.3 2.6 18.0 36.2 77.6 156.2 0.1 0.1 100 201.2

Blueberry Field 1.4 1.9 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.4 35.0 46.8 58.7 78.4 0.0 0.1 100 133.6

Grasslands 0.3 13.0 0.5 23.4 0.4 20.8 5.2 246.0 93.5 4,411.0 0.1 5.0 100 4,719.2

Crops/Ground 0.3 3.5 0.5 5.1 1.0 11.6 6.3 70.7 91.3 1,017.8 0.5 5.9 100 1,114.6

Forestlands 1.5 942.7 1.5 938.2 4.3 2,793.5 56.3 36,333.6 36.3 23,391.1 0.1 83.8 100 64,482.9

Clearcut 0.6 7.7 0.7 9.2 1.7 22.1 68.3 868.5 28.5 362.6 0.2 2.3 100 1,272.3

Early Regeneration 0.6 34.2 0.4 24.0 2.2 118.8 80.0 4,297.0 16.6 892.6 0.1 3.0 100 5,369.6

Late Regeneration 0.6 16.7 0.9 25.5 3.4 100.3 65.5 1,916.9 29.5 863.1 0.1 3.1 100 2,925.6

Light Partial Cut 1.1 12.9 1.7 19.3 3.7 42.2 59.8 680.2 33.6 381.9 0.1 1.0 100 1,137.4

Heavy Partial Cut 0.4 5.6 0.7 10.9 3.3 50.6 64.5 990.2 31.1 478.0 0.1 0.9 100 1,536.1

Deciduous Forest 1.5 188.0 1.3 169.4 5.3 683.9 55.1 7,066.8 36.7 4,704.4 0.0 6.1 100 12,818.7

Decid./conif. Forest 1.5 199.6 1.2 166.3 4.3 575.6 50.8 6,847.0 42.2 5,686.3 0.1 11.5 100 13,486.3

Conif./Decid. Forest 1.4 244.6 1.6 282.5 4.5 817.2 50.2 9,038.7 42.2 7,604.8 0.2 32.6 100 18,020.3

Coniferous Forest 2.9 233.4 2.9 231.2 4.8 382.9 58.5 4,628.3 30.5 2,417.4 0.3 23.3 100 7,916.6

Water & Wetlands 0.9 114.0 2.3 290.7 2.9 366.5 35.8 4,601.2 29.2 3,756.6 29.0 3,721.0 100 12,850.0

Deciduous Forested 0.5 4.0 3.1 23.0 2.7 20.0 26.5 194.9 66.7 490.7 0.5 3.6 100 736.1

Coniferous Forested 1.1 42.5 1.7 66.5 4.8 185.8 65.3 2,539.4 26.9 1,047.5 0.2 9.3 100 3,891.0

Dead-forest 0.6 0.2 5.7 1.6 3.2 0.9 41.9 11.7 47.1 13.1 1.5 0.4 100 27.9

Decid. Forested 1.3 18.5 3.9 53.9 4.0 55.9 51.2 709.1 37.3 515.8 2.2 30.9 100 1,384.1

Conif. Scrub-shrub 2.2 3.4 4.2 6.5 3.8 5.9 55.7 87.1 32.0 50.0 2.1 3.3 100 156.3

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 46.2 0.5 49.8 0.6 2.4 0.0 100 1.2

Fresh Aquatic Bed 6.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 53.0 0.8 38.1 0.5 100 1.4

Fresh Emergent 1.2 8.6 3.4 24.1 4.4 31.4 49.9 358.4 37.0 265.7 4.2 30.5 100 718.8

Peatland 2.2 10.3 5.2 24.7 4.1 19.2 61.3 289.9 25.9 122.4 1.3 6.3 100 472.7

Wet Meadow 1.8 3.0 8.0 13.6 5.1 8.7 41.6 70.7 34.1 57.9 9.4 16.0 100 170.0

Salt Aquatic Bed 2.8 5.4 2.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 95.1 187.2 0.0 0.0 100 196.9

Salt Emergent 2.8 2.2 23.3 18.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 72.3 58.0 1.4 1.1 100 80.2

Mudflat 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.2 96.8 228.6 1.3 3.1 100 236.1

Sand Shore 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 97.0 30.6 0.1 0.0 100 31.5

Gravel Shore 0.3 0.1 16.5 6.2 0.2 0.1 14.4 5.4 26.7 10.0 41.9 15.6 100 37.3

Rock Shore 4.5 2.9 7.7 4.9 0.3 0.2 9.2 5.8 42.6 27.1 35.7 22.7 100 63.5

Shallow Water 1.5 2.1 2.0 2.9 3.4 5.0 38.7 56.8 26.1 38.4 28.3 41.6 100 146.7

Open Watera 0.2 9.6 0.8 37.4 0.7 33.1 6.0 269.9 13.6 612.2 78.6 3,536.0 100 4,498.2

Developed Lands 0.4 4.1 0.5 5.4 1.1 12.0 12.2 130.0 85.7 913.1 0.1 1.2 100 1,066.0

Sparse Residential 0.6 3.9 0.6 4.5 0.9 6.0 17.3 119.6 80.5 555.7 0.1 0.9 100 690.6

Dense Residential 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.7 5.9 2.8 9.9 95.1 335.0 0.1 0.3 100 352.2

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 98.7 14.7 0.1 0.0 100 14.9

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.8 0.5 93.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 100 8.2

Other 77.2 50.6 2.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 3.8 2.5 16.4 10.8 0.1 0.0 100 65.5

Alpine Tundra 88.9 18.4 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 7.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100 20.6

Exposed Rock/Talus 71.9 32.2 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 2.3 1.0 24.0 10.8 0.1 0.0 100 44.9

a - Open Water (cover type) and Open Water (ownership) classes do not correspond exactly due to differences in data sources (i.e., TM vertically vs. USGS horizontally), class definitions, and data

resolution.

72
Table 22. Percent (%) and area (km2

) of vegetation and land cover types within major land ownerships.

Federal Native State Private Commercial Other Private Open

American Conservation Forestland and Municipal Watera

___________ _____________ _____________ _______________ ______________ _________________ __________________

Cover Type % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 3.6 29.0 1.1 11.1 1.2 44.0 4.1 7.3 1.0 399.5 16.8 5,665.5 0.3 12.4

Abandoned Field 0.6 4.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 3.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 36.1 0.5 156.2 0.0 0.3

Blueberry Field 0.3 2.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 4.7 0.6 1.1 0.1 46.8 0.2 77.8 0.0 0.1

Grasslands 1.9 15.3 0.6 6.0 0.8 27.8 2.9 5.1 0.6 245.9 13.1 4,413.2 0.1 5.8

Crops/Ground 0.9 6.8 0.4 4.1 0.2 7.7 0.5 0.9 0.2 70.6 3.0 1,018.3 0.2 6.1

Forestlands 80.5 644.2 84.4 868.0 84.4 2,979.7 68.6 122.9 87.6 36,330.4 69.4 23,428.8 2.8 108.8

Clearcut 0.5 4.1 1.1 11.2 0.6 20.4 1.3 2.4 2.1 868.4 1.1 363.0 0.1 2.6

Early Regeneration 1.2 9.3 6.5 66.9 2.7 94.3 2.0 3.6 10.4 4,296.3 2.7 894.8 0.1 4.3

Late Regeneration 1.7 13.3 4.7 48.8 2.1 73.8 2.5 4.5 4.6 1,916.7 2.6 864.6 0.1 4.0

Light Partial Cut 1.3 10.1 1.1 11.2 1.4 50.6 0.7 1.2 1.6 680.0 1.1 382.9 0.0 1.4

Heavy Partial Cut 0.8 6.6 2.0 20.4 1.0 35.6 1.4 2.5 2.4 990.1 1.4 479.4 0.0 1.3

Deciduous Forest 19.9 159.3 19.5 200.5 18.4 649.0 7.9 14.2 17.0 7,066.7 14.0 4,717.1 0.3 11.8

Decid./conif. Forest 14.0 112.5 13.0 133.2 18.6 655.6 12.9 23.0 16.5 6,846.6 16.9 5,698.6 0.4 16.8

Conif./decid. Forest 21.4 171.2 25.0 256.6 24.8 875.4 17.6 31.5 21.8 9,037.6 22.5 7,608.9 1.0 39.1

Coniferous Forest 19.7 157.7 11.6 119.2 14.9 524.9 22.3 40.0 11.2 4,628.0 7.2 2,419.6 0.7 27.3

Water & Wetlands 13.0 103.8 14.2 145.6 13.1 461.8 26.7 47.8 11.1 4,599.3 11.1 3,736.9 96.8 3,754.8

Deciduous Forested 0.9 7.5 0.7 7.2 0.8 29.5 1.1 2.0 0.5 194.7 1.5 490.5 0.1 4.7

Coniferous Forested 3.8 30.2 6.8 69.5 4.8 168.4 10.1 18.0 6.1 2,539.1 3.1 1,055.2 0.3 10.6

Dead-forest 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.7 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.5

Decid. Scrub-shrub 2.3 18.5 2.3 23.8 2.2 78.6 3.3 5.9 1.7 708.9 1.5 515.6 0.8 32.8

Conif. Scrub-shrub 0.1 1.2 0.2 2.5 0.3 11.5 0.4 0.7 0.2 87.1 0.1 49.8 0.1 3.4

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6

Fresh Emergent 0.9 7.4 1.4 14.6 1.1 40.4 1.1 2.0 0.9 358.3 0.8 264.3 0.8 31.8

Peatland 1.0 8.0 0.8 8.1 0.8 29.5 4.7 8.4 0.7 289.9 0.4 122.3 0.2 6.5

Wet Meadow 0.7 5.3 0.4 3.7 0.4 15.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 70.7 0.2 58.3 0.4 16.4

Salt Aquatic Bed 0.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.4 1.6 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.6 187.1 0.0 0.0

Salt Emergent 1.1 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 10.1 1.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 56.5 0.1 2.9

Mudflat 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.7 226.8 0.1 5.0

Sand Shore 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 30.5 0.0 0.0

Gravel Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 9.6 0.4 16.0

Rock Shore 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.9 1.6 0.0 5.8 0.1 26.8 0.6 22.9

Shallow Water 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.2 6.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 56.8 0.1 37.9 1.1 42.0

Open Watera 0.8 6.5 1.4 14.4 1.6 55.5 1.7 3.1 0.6 268.9 1.8 591.0 91.8 3,558.8

Developed Lands 1.3 10.1 0.3 3.5 0.1 5.0 0.5 0.9 0.3 130.0 2.7 914.6 0.0 1.9

Sparse Residential 0.7 5.7 0.3 3.3 0.1 4.4 0.4 0.7 0.3 119.6 1.6 555.5 0.0 1.5

Dense Residential 0.5 4.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 9.9 1.0 336.5 0.0 0.4

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0

Other 1.7 13.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 38.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.2

Alpine Tundra 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exposed Rock/Talus 1.6 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 20.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.2

Total 100 800.6 100 1,028.2 100 3,528.9 100 179.1 100 41,461.7 100 33,756.4 100 3,878.2

a - Open Water (cover type) and Open Water (ownership) classes do not correspond exactly due to differences in data sources (i.e., TM vertically vs. USGS horizontally), class definitions, and data

resolution.

73
Table 23. Percent (%) and area (km2

) of vegetation and land cover types within land management Categories.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3a Category 3b Category 4 Open Watera

_____________ ________________ _______________ _________________ _______________ ______________

Cover Type % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km 2

Agricultural Lands 1.6 19.2 2.9 36.9 1.2 38.4 1.0 399.6 16.8 5,663.4 0.3 11.1

Abandoned Field 0.0 0.8 0.4 5.3 0.1 2.6 0.1 36.2 0.5 156.2 0.0 0.1

Blueberry Field 0.2 1.9 0.2 3.1 0.1 3.4 0.1 46.8 0.2 78.4 0.0 0.1

Grasslands 1.1 13.0 1.8 23.4 0.6 20.8 0.6 246.0 13.1 4,411.0 0.1 5.0

Crops/Ground 0.3 3.5 0.4 5.1 0.4 11.6 0.2 70.7 3.0 1,017.8 0.2 5.9

Forestlands 83.4 942.7 73.7 938.2 87.0 2,793.5 87.6 36,333.6 69.3 23,391.1 2.2 83.8

Clearcut 0.7 7.7 0.7 9.2 0.7 22.1 2.1 868.5 1.1 362.6 0.1 2.3

Early Regeneration 3.0 34.2 1.9 24.0 3.7 118.8 10.4 4,297.0 2.6 892.6 0.1 3.0

Late Regeneration 1.5 16.7 2.0 25.5 3.1 100.3 4.6 1,916.9 2.6 863.1 0.1 3.1

Light Partial Cut 1.1 12.9 1.5 19.3 1.3 42.2 1.6 680.2 1.1 381.9 0.0 1.0

Heavy Partial Cut 0.5 5.6 0.9 10.9 1.6 50.6 2.4 990.2 1.4 478.0 0.0 0.9

Deciduous Forest 16.6 188.0 13.3 169.4 21.3 683.9 17.0 7,066.8 13.9 4,704.4 0.2 6.1

Decid./conif. Forest 17.7 199.6 13.1 166.3 17.9 575.6 16.5 6,847.0 16.9 5,686.3 0.3 11.5

Conif./Decid. Forest 21.6 244.6 22.2 282.5 25.5 817.2 21.8 9,038.7 22.5 7,604.8 0.9 32.6

Coniferous Forest 20.6 233.4 18.2 231.2 11.9 382.9 11.2 4,628.3 7.2 2,417.4 0.6 23.3

Water & Wetlands 10.1 114.0 22.8 290.7 11.4 366.5 11.1 4,601.2 11.1 3,756.6 97.5 3,721.0

Deciduous Forested 0.4 4.0 1.8 23.0 0.6 20.0 0.5 194.9 1.5 490.7 0.1 3.6

Coniferous Forested 3.8 42.5 5.2 66.5 5.8 185.8 6.1 2,539.4 3.1 1,047.5 0.2 9.3

Dead-forest 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 11.7 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.4

Decid. Forested 1.6 18.5 4.2 53.9 1.7 55.9 1.7 709.1 1.5 515.8 0.8 30.9

Conif. Scrub-shrub 0.3 3.4 0.5 6.5 0.2 5.9 0.2 87.1 0.1 50.0 0.1 3.3

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.5

Fresh Emergent 0.8 8.6 1.9 24.1 1.0 31.4 0.9 358.4 0.8 265.7 0.8 30.5

Peatland 0.9 10.3 1.9 24.7 0.6 19.2 0.7 289.9 0.4 122.4 0.2 6.3

Wet Meadow 0.3 3.0 1.1 13.6 0.3 8.7 0.2 70.7 0.2 57.9 0.4 16.0

Salt Aquatic Bed 0.5 5.4 0.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 187.2 0.0 0.0

Salt Emergent 0.2 2.2 1.5 18.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 58.0 0.0 1.1

Mudflat 0.1 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 228.6 0.1 3.1

Sand Shore 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 30.6 0.0 0.0

Gravel Shore 0.0 0.1 0.5 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.4 0.0 10.0 0.4 15.6

Rock Shore 0.3 2.9 0.4 4.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.8 0.1 27.1 0.6 22.7

Shallow Water 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.9 0.2 5.0 0.1 56.8 0.1 38.4 1.1 41.6

Open Watera 0.9 9.6 2.9 37.4 1.0 33.1 0.7 269.9 1.8 612.2 92.6 3,536.0

Developed Lands 0.4 4.1 0.4 5.4 0.4 12.0 0.3 130.0 2.7 913.1 0.0 1.2

Sparse Residential 0.3 3.9 0.4 4.5 0.2 6.0 0.3 119.6 1.6 555.7 0.0 0.9

Dense Residential 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.2 5.9 0.0 9.9 1.0 335.0 0.0 0.3

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0

Other 4.5 50.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0

Alpine Tundra 1.6 18.4 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exposed Rock/Talus 2.9 32.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0

Total 100 1,130.6 100 1,272.7 100 3,210.4 100 41,466.9 100 33,735.0 100 3,817.3

a

 - Open Water (cover type) and Open Water (ownership) classes do not correspond exactly due to differences in data sources (i.e., TM vertically vs. USGS horizontally), class definitions, and data

resolution.

74
75

Limitations and Discussion

The rarity of old-growth forests in Maine (Gawler et al. 1996), and the eastern USA (Davis

1996), is a major conservation concern. However, we were unable to address this issue given the

limitations of TM imagery to identify Maine plant communities. In addition, given the general

level at which vegetation and land covers types were mapped in Maine, and the fact that so little

of the state is in Category 1 and 2 lands, we could not do detailed gap analyses of plant

communities in Maine as has been done elsewhere (e.g.; Caicco et al. 1995, Davis et al. 1995,

and Stoms et al. 1998). Nevertheless, the vegetation and land cover data presented in this report

is amenable to many types of analyses in addition to which have been presented in this report.

Predicted Vertebrate Distributions Analysis

Description of Vertebrate Distributions Analysis

Appendix 11 provides the area in km2 of each species’ habitat by land management Category and

major ownerships. Similar to plant communities, a gap analysis typically assumes that the more

habitat a species has in the state, or the higher the percent of an animal’s predicted distribution

that is on Category 1 and 2 lands, the more secure that species is from extinction. Specifically,

the two criteria used in gap analyses to define protected versus unprotected breeding vertebrates

are (1) the percent of a species’ predicted habitats within a state that are on land management

Categories 1 and 2, and (2) the total amount of predicted habitat in the state. For example, if <

10 % of a species’ habitat is in Category 1 and 2 lands, or it has less than 50,000 ha of habitat in

a state, it would be considered unprotected and thus a conservation risk. In Maine, the vast

majority of terrestrial vertebrates have only 2-5 % of their habitats on Category 1 and 2 lands

(Figure 14).
76

Figure 14. Frequency distribution of the percent of vertebrates by the percent of their Maine

habitat in land management Categories 1 and 2. Data for individual species from Appendix 8.

If in fact conservation risk and Criteria 1 are related, then one would predict that the majority of

the Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in Maine would have < =1 % of their habitats in

Category 1 and 2 lands, (i.e., occur on the left side of Figure 14). In fact, the 13 T&E species

listed by the MDIFW span Figure 14, averaging 19.2 % (range: 0.89 - 100%) of their habitats in

Categories 1 and 2, as can be seen in Table 24 below:

Table 24. Conservation threshold criteria (i.e., Total Habitat, % of Habitat in Category 1 & 2)

used to define protected/unprotected as applied to endangered and threatened species listed by

the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Data is from Appendix 8.

Species Endangered (E) Total Habitat % of Maine habitat in land

or Threatened (T) (km2) in Maine management Categories 1 & 2

Black Tern E 58 1.95

North. Bog Lemming T 156 79.80

Spotted Turtle T 175 2.98

East. Box Turtle E 321 2.72

Golden Eagle E 461 7.16

Sedge Wren E 567 7.74

Bald Eagle T 1,073 8.03

Grasshopper Sparrow E 1,233 0.89

Blanding’s Turtle E 1,441 2.58

Peregrine Falcon E 2,404 29.30

Racer E 2,912 2.21

Upland Sandpiper T 4,127 2.97

Mean 1,149 19.2

Range 10 - 4,127 0.89 – 100

American Pipit

(Anthus rubescens) E 10 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >10

% of Species

Amphibians (n = 17)

Reptiles (n = 16)

Birds (n = 183)

Mammals (n = 54)

All (n = 270)

% of Maine habitat in Categories 1 & 2 % of Maine habitat in Categories 1 & 2
77

Furthermore, going beyond T&E species, some of the birds and mammals of highest

conservation concern in Maine have the highest fraction of their habitats in Category 1 and 2

lands. Note that of the four birds with the highest percent of their Maine habitats in Category 1

and 2 lands (Peregrine Falcon, Bicknell’s Thrush, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow, and

American Pipit; Appendix 8:7), all but the sparrow (and it’s status is uncertain) are of high

concern. Similarly, the two mammals with the highest percent of their Maine habitats in

Category 1 and 2 (Rock Vole = 15 % and Northern Bog Lemming = 80 %, Appendix 8:8) also

are of interest to Maine conservationists.

Figure 15 shows, on a log scale, the amount of predicted habitat in Maine relative to the number

of species by taxonomic classes.

Figure 15. Frequency distribution of the total amount (km2 ) of predicted habitat of vertebrate

species breeding in Maine. Data for individual species from Appendix 8.

In terms of defining protected/unprotected species, the above figure suggests that species with

< 1,000 km2 of habitat in Maine would be at risk. Again looking at the data for those species

listed by the MDIFW as T&E species in Maine, seven fall below this threshold and six above

(Table 24), suggesting that total amount of habitat is not a good predictor of conservation risk in

Maine. In looking at species of conservation concern other than T&E, some have small amounts

of habitat in Maine (e.g., New England Cottontail = 1,723 km2, Appendix 8:7) whereas others

have relative large amounts (Lynx = 16,598 km2, Appendix 8:7). While there appears to be little,

if no relation between current risk to endangerment and threshold criteria 1 and 2, there is a more

robust approach that can be taken to identify areas of conservation concern.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1,000 1,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 100,000

Amount of predicted habitat (km2

)

% of species

Amphibians (n = 17)

Reptiles (n = 16)

Birds (n = 183)

Mammals (n = 54)

All (n = 270)
78

We used a GIS to overlay the predicted distributions of the 13 T&E species listed by the

MDIFW and found that most occur in the southern-most portion of the state (Figure 16).

Because of the high overall vertebrate richness in southern Maine (Map 4), a relatively dense

human population that is redistributing itself from cites and towns to the rural parts of southern

Maine (Figure 1), and because this is a region with only small and scattered conservation lands

(Map 5) and essentially no Category 1 lands (Map 6), we argue that southern Maine is a priority

for conservation planning.
Figure 16. Richness patterns of 13 species of terrestrial vertbrates

listed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife as

Threatened or Endangered.
80

Analysis of Special Species

A major advantage of doing gap analyses on a state-by-state basis is that the analyses can be

customized to met specific state needs. To illustrate the kinds of species-specific analyses that

are possible with data from ME-GAP, and are of interest to wildlife resource managers in Maine,

we selected four species: Bicknell’s Thrush, American Beaver, Bald Eagle, and White-tailed

Deer.

Bicknell’s Thrush: Endemic (i.e., distribution limited to Maine) vertebrates are nonexistent in

Maine, probably due to the relatively recent glaciation providing too little time for highly

specialized species to evolve (also note the patterns in Fig. 1 of Dobson et al. 1997). However,

Bicknell’s is as close to an endemic vertebrate as Maine has, although the species is distributed

at higher elevations in New York, New England, and eastern Canada (recent research in Canada

is also finding the species in managed forests at lower elevations). Bicknell’s has only recently

been recognized as a species and because of its limited distribution and apparently narrow

ecological niche (i.e., stunted spruce-fir forests), it is of concern to both federal and state

management authorities. The predicted distribution for this species is shown on page 223 of

Boone and Krohn (1998b). Table 25, constructed with data from Appendix 11:37, shows the

distribution of Bicknell’s predicted habitats by land management Categories and major land

ownerships:

Table 25. Percent (%) and area (km2 ) of the predicted distribution of Bicknell’s Thrush in

Maine by land management Categories and major land ownerships.

Major Land Land Management Categories

Ownerships

 1 2 3 4 Total

 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Federal 0.0 0.0 7.4 15.3 1.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 8.6 17.8

Native 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8

State 13.2 27.4 8.8 18.4 3.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 25.0 52.0

Private Conservation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Commercial Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.3 135.9 0.0 0.0 65.3 135.9

Other Private and Municipal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

Total 13.2 27.4 16.2 33.7 70.4 146.4 0.2 0.5 100.0 208.0
81

Table 26. Comparison of habitats predicted to be used by Bicknell’s Thrush to habitats available

in Western Maine. (See Figure 2 for the location of this region).

Habitats and Predicted Habitat Available Habitat

Land Cover Types

_________________ __________________

% km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 0.1 0.2 2.3 446.4

Abandoned Field 0.1 0.1 0.1 14.3

Blueberry Field 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grasslands 0.0 0.1 2.1 408.4

Crops/Ground 0.0 0.0 0.1 23.7

Forestlands 91.0 189.0 85.6 16,306.2

Clearcut 0.5 1.1 1.6 300.6

Early Regeneration 3.5 7.3 6.7 1278.0

Late Regeneration 8.9 18.4 3.6 683.7

Light Partial Cut 9.2 19.0 1.6 307.1

Heavy Partial Cut 1.1 2.3 3.0 566.2

Deciduous 0.8 1.6 25.9 4932.8

Deciduous/coniferous 5.6 11.5 18.4 3510.6

Coniferous/deciduous 14.3 29.7 16.6 3171.2

Coniferous 47.1 97.9 8.2 1556.1

Water & Wetlands 0.4 0.8 11.5 2,199.0

Deciduous Forested 0.0 0.0 0.5 104.0

Coniferous Forested 0.0 0.0 2.5 476.5

Dead-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6

Deciduous Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 1.2 223.5

Coniferous Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.1 28.1

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Fresh Emergent 0.0 0.0 0.6 116.6

Peatland 0.0 0.0 0.2 34.8

Wet Meadow 0.0 0.0 0.1 25.7

Salt Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Salt Emergent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mudflat 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Sand Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gravel Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9

Rock Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1

Shallow Water 0.0 0.1 0.2 37.8

Open Water 0.3 0.7 6.0 1,133.8

Developed Lands 0.1 0.2 0.3 57.5

Sparse Residential 0.1 0.2 0.2 36.8

Dense Residential 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.3

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Other 8.5 17.6 0.2 41.6

Alpine Tundra 7.7 15.9 0.1 20.6

Exposed Rock/Talus 0.8 1.6 0.1 20.9

Totals 100.0 207.8 100.0 19,050.7
82

Potential habitat for Bicknell’s Thrush is very limited in Maine, comprising only 0.25 %

(= 208/84,633 km2) of the state (Tables 25 and 26). Of the approximately 208 km2 of habitat,

over 29 % is on Category 1 and 2, and more than 70 % on Category 3 lands (Table 25). Clearly,

habitat conservation for this species in Maine requires not only working with state and federal

land managers (see Appendix 11:37 for specific agencies), but also owners of Commercial

Forestlands in western and northern Maine. The relatively high altitude spruce-fir forests

inhabited by this species can be harvested, and depending on location could involve restrictions

from the Land Use Regulations Commission, MDOC. Not only does the above table give

wildlife managers a quantitative (and spatially explicit, see Boone and Krohn 1998b:223)

estimate of potential habitats for Bicknell’s Thrush, but also the above analysis quickly identifies

the key agencies and organizations that must be involved and coordinated for the successful

conservation of this rare species’ habitat.

American Beaver: In contrast to the Bicknell’s Thrush, the American Beaver is a common, yearround resident widely distributed throughout Maine (Boone and Krohn 1998a:119). Interest in

this species is that its presence greatly influences the abundance and distribution of other species

including River Otter (Dubuc et al. 1990, 1991) and other mammals (e.g., Mink and Muskrats),

numerous waterbirds (Gibbs et al. 1991, McCall et al. 1996), various amphibians and reptiles,

and fishes (e.g., Brook Trout). In addition, beavers are harvested for fur and can cause

considerable damage by flooding roads and cutting ornamental trees. Table 27 below,

summarized from Appendix 11:62, shows the species’ predicted distribution by land

management Categories and major land ownership, whereas Table 28 shows the distributions of

predicted habitats by regions.

Table 27. Percent (%) and area (km2) of predicted distribution of American Beaver in Maine by

land management Categories and major land ownerships.

Major Land Land Management Categories

Ownerships

 1 2 3 4 Total

% km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Federal 0.2 74.7 0.4 137.1 0.3 82.2 1.0 294.0

Native 0.1 15.7 1.5 454.6 1.5 470.3

State 0.8 248.2 1.5 453.5 2.3 702.5 9.3 4.6 1,413.5

Private Conservation 0.3 76.8 11.2 0.3 0.3 88.3

Commercial Forest 52.2 16,005.9 52.2 16,005.9

Other Private and Municipal 0.0 0.1 7.3 0.1 38.1 40.3 12,348.5 40.4 12,394.0

Total 1.3 399.8 2.0 624.8 56.4 17,283.6 40.3 12,357.8 100.0 30,666.0
83

Table 28. Distribution of habitats predicted to be used by American Beaver by biophysical

regions of Maine.a

Habitats and St. John St John Valley Western & Eastern Lowlands Coastal Plains

Land Cover Types Uplands Interior Foothills Interior Mountains & Foothills & Foothills

 ___________ ______________ ________________ _______________ _____________

 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 0.4 16.4 2.7 225.6 1.7 99.1 2.8 176.0 9.4 690.1

Abandoned Field 0.0 0.3 0.1 7.7 0.1 5.1 0.8 47.2 0.4 30.8

Blueberry Field 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 34.0 0.0 2.0

Grasslands 0.2 8.0 1.9 158.6 1.5 86.6 1.2 72.8 7.8 573.3

Crops/Ground 0.2 8.0 0.7 59.4 0.1 7.4 0.4 22.0 1.1 84.1

Forestlands 77.5 3,183.0 66.7 5,587.5 76.1 4,437.5 66.7 4,171.5 66.1 4,844.5

Clearcut 1.3 54.5 0.8 63.8 1.1 65.2 1.2 77.2 1.1 77.1

Early Regeneration 16.7 686.7 6.7 558.7 7.7 448.1 4.7 297.1 1.6 118.3

Late Regeneration 5.5 224.6 2.6 220.7 4.5 259.5 4.5 282.0 3.2 230.9

Light Partial Cut 1.9 76.9 0.9 71.8 1.6 92.3 1.3 78.7 1.5 113.5

Heavy Partial Cut 2.6 107.4 1.1 94.9 2.7 155.9 1.1 71.3 1.4 104.4

Deciduous 8.2 335.5 7.5 624.5 16.2 947.1 3.7 230.5 9.5 695.2

Deciduous/coniferous 14.3 586.3 12.7 1065.6 17.1 994.1 8.0 502.2 17.4 1275.4

Coniferous/deciduous 18.8 770.8 25.5 2135.1 18.9 1103.8 33.7 2108.1 24.6 1805.7

Coniferous 8.3 340.2 9.0 752.4 6.4 371.6 8.4 524.5 5.8 424.0

Water & Wetlands 22.0 904.2 30.1 2,522.4 21.9 1,275.7 29.5 1,842.9 23.2 1,702.8

Deciduous Forested 0.4 16.8 1.3 111.7 1.5 88.3 1.3 84.1 4.2 308.2

Coniferous Forested 11.4 470.1 15.2 1269.0 6.9 403.7 10.5 657.5 6.2 454.2

Dead-forest 0.0 2.0 0.1 5.3 0.1 3.1 0.1 6.7 0.1 6.6

Deciduous Scrub-shrub 2.8 116.0 4.0 338.5 3.4 196.4 4.4 273.6 3.4 251.6

Coniferous Scrub-shrub 0.2 9.7 0.5 43.0 0.4 24.2 0.5 28.8 0.4 26.8

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4

Fresh Emergent 1.7 70.0 1.6 137.4 1.7 100.0 2.5 156.1 1.9 141.2

Peatland 0.9 36.5 1.4 119.8 0.5 30.3 2.6 160.7 1.0 75.5

Wet Meadow 0.2 8.2 0.4 31.3 0.4 22.6 0.8 50.1 0.5 34.5

Salt Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.0 0.1 4.2

Salt Emergent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.0 0.3 24.9

Mudflat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 7.3 0.1 5.1

Sand Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7

Gravel Shore 0.1 4.6 0.1 4.8 0.1 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6

Rock Shore 0.0 0.3 0.2 15.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.8

Shallow Water 0.3 14.3 0.3 27.5 0.5 30.4 0.4 23.1 0.3 19.7

Open Water 3.8 155.7 5.0 418.6 6.3 369.2 6.0 373.5 4.7 347.7

Developed Lands 0.1 4.0 0.4 37.1 0.2 14.6 1.0 61.7 1.2 86.9

Sparse Residential 0.1 3.2 0.4 33.4 0.2 11.4 0.9 58.0 0.8 56.8

Dense Residential 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.5 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.3 0.4 28.2

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0

Other 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.1

Alpine Tundra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exposed Rock/Talus 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.1

Totals 100 4,109.2 100 8,372.9 100 5,828.1 100 6,255.7 100 7,328.8

a

 – see Figure 2 for locations of Regions.
84

Almost 93 % of the potential habitat for this species is on private land, and this may be no

accident. Forestlands in Maine by small as well large landowners (i.e., Commercial Forestlands

in the above table) are intensively managed, with clear-cutting a common and widespread

forestry practice. Regenerating hardwoods provide food and building material to beavers

whereas culverts resulting from road building associated with the tree harvesting provide

potential sites for dams. Thus, the combination of extensive stands of regenerating hardwoods in

close proximity to high quality dam sites, provides ideal conditions for the American Beaver.

Correlations between beaver populations and forest harvesting activities can be explored in more

detail with ME-GAP habitat data and beaver occurrence records from field surveys.

Bald Eagle: The above two examples deal with predicted habitats of species. Following are two

species were gap-type analyses are done with habitats identified from field inventories (i.e.,

actual versus predicted habitats). The first species, the Bald Eagle is managed by the MDIFW.

Under Maine’s Endangered Species Act, MDIFW has the authority to declare Essential Habitats

for endangered species and in the case of Bald Eagles, has defined this as a 0.40 km (0.25 mi)

buffer around known nest sites (MDIFW 1998). Locations of eagle nests are well known in

Maine due to long-term monitoring (Owen et al. 1991). In comparing habitats used by breeding

eagles to what is available statewide, it’s apparent that Bald Eagles in Maine, as elsewhere, are

closely associated with Water and Wetlands (Table 29). When habitat use is looked at on a

regional basis, however, inland nests are more associated with Forestlands than coastal nests, but

throughout the state Bald Eagles are closely associated with Water and Wetlands (Table 30). We

looked at ownership of eagle Essential Habitats by (1) nest sites, and (2) buffers. Approximately

33 % and 23 % of the coastal and inland nest sites, respectively, occurred on conservation and

Indian lands whereas the remaining nests were on private lands (Table 31). Note that of the 158

coastal nests, 13 % (n = 21) were on lands owned by the Maine Chapter of The Nature

Conservancy. We caution, however, that the ownership map for ME-GAP (i.e., CAPLD) is at a

1:100,000 scale and thus these figures are only approximations. In terms of the habitats within

the buffers, approximately 13 % and 16 % of the coastal and inland Essential Habitats,

respectively, were on conservation and Indian lands (Table 31). Again, the importance of private

landowners, both large and small, in the conservation of a species is apparent.
Table 29. Percent (%) and area (km2

) of Essential Habitats for Bald Eagles compared to

habitats available statewide.

Habitats and Essential Habitata Statewide Habitat

Land Cover Types ___________________ _____________________

% km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 2.5 3.7 7.3 6,168.6

Abandoned Field 0.2 0.2 0.2 201.2

Blueberry Field 0.2 0.3 0.2 133.6

Grasslands 1.8 2.6 5.6 4719.2

Crops/Ground 0.4 0.6 1.3 1114.6

Forestlands 34.4 51.6 76.2 64,482.9

Clearcut 0.4 0.7 1.5 1272.3

Early Regeneration 2.2 3.2 6.3 5369.6

Late Regeneration 1.5 2.2 3.5 2925.6

Light Partial Cut 0.4 0.6 1.3 1137.5

Heavy Partial Cut 0.3 0.4 1.8 1536.1

Deciduous 2.5 3.7 15.2 12818.7

Deciduous/coniferous 3.4 5.1 15.9 13486.4

Coniferous/deciduous 13.4 20.2 21.3 18020.3

Coniferous 10.3 15.5 9.4 7916.6

Water & Wetlands 62.6 94.1 9.7 12,849.9

Deciduous Forested 0.8 1.2 0.9 736.1

Coniferous Forested 1.8 2.7 4.6 3891.0

Dead-forest 0.2 0.2 0.0 27.9

Deciduous Scrub-shrub 1.8 2.7 1.6 1384.1

Coniferous Scrub-shrub 0.2 0.3 0.2 156.3

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

Fresh Emergent 1.3 2.0 0.9 718.8

Peatland 0.4 0.5 0.6 472.8

Wet Meadow 0.8 1.3 0.2 170.0

Salt Aquatic Bed 4.2 6.3 0.2 196.9

Salt Emergent 0.5 0.7 0.1 80.2

Mudflat 3.7 5.6 0.3 236.1

Sand Shore 0.1 0.2 0.0 31.5

Gravel Shore 0.1 0.2 0.0 37.3

Rock Shore 0.9 1.4 0.1 63.5

Shallow Water 0.1 0.2 0.2 146.7

Open Water 24.0 36.0 5.3 4498.2

Salt Water 21.6 32.5 NAb NAb

Developed Lands 0.5 0.8 1.2 1,065.9

Sparse Residential 0.5 0.8 0.8 690.6

Dense Residential 0.0 0.0 0.4 352.2

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2

Other 0.0 0.0 0.1 65.5

Alpine Tundra 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6

Exposed Rock/Talus 0.0 0.0 0.1 44.9

Totals 100.0 150.3 100.0 84,632.9

a

 – Defined by state regulations as a 0.25 mi. buffer around nest sites.

b

 – Not Applicable in that boundary for Atlantic Ocean was arbitrary.
Table 30. Percent (%) and area (km2

) of Essential Habitatsa for Bald Eagles (n = 322) in Maine

by biophysical regions and habitat types. Locations of regions shown in Figure 2.

Habitats and St. John St John Valley Western & Eastern Lowlands Coastal Plains Coastal

Land Cover Types Uplands Interior Foothills Interior Mountains & Foothills & Foothills

_________ _______________ ________________ ______________ ___________ ___________

% km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.7 10.3 1.8 0.3 0.2

Abandoned Field 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blueberry Field 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grasslands 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 8.9 1.6 0.3 0.1

Crops/Ground 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Forestlands 59.1 2.1 46.2 8.2 51.0 4.4 51.5 28.9 39.6 7.0 2.1 1.0

Clearcut 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0

Early Regeneration 26.3 0.9 2.7 0.5 4.6 0.4 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

Late Regeneration 4.7 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.1 0.1 2.3 1.3 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0

Light Partial Cut 1.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Partial Cut 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

Deciduous 4.6 0.2 2.2 0.4 10.7 0.9 1.9 1.1 6.5 1.2 0.1 0.0

Deciduous/coniferous 4.4 0.2 8.1 1.4 5.0 0.4 3.2 1.8 6.8 1.2 0.1 0.1

Coniferous/deciduous 8.2 0.3 19.4 3.5 18.3 1.6 22.9 12.9 10.6 1.9 0.3 0.2

Coniferous 8.1 0.3 10.4 1.9 9.0 0.8 17.7 10.0 11.4 2.0 1.3 0.6

Water & Wetlands 39.9 1.4 53.4 9.5 49.0 4.2 44.7 25.1 48.6 8.7 97.5 45.2

Deciduous Forested 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 1.1 0.6 2.8 0.5 0.0 0.0

Coniferous Forested 1.8 0.1 7.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.5 0.8 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0

Dead-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Deciduous Scrub-shrub 2.0 0.1 3.1 0.5 1.9 0.2 2.9 1.6 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0

Coniferous Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fresh Emergent 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 3.0 0.3 2.0 1.1 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0

Peatland 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wet Meadow 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.2 1.8 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0

Salt Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.3 1.1 0.2 10.3 4.8

Salt Emergent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.3

Mudflat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 3.2 0.6 10.0 4.6

Sand Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1

Gravel Shore 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

Rock Shore 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.7

Shallow Water 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Open Water 34.7 1.2 39.0 7.0 38.8 3.3 28.7 16.2 30.9 5.5 6.2 2.9

Salt Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.3 68.7 31.8

Developed Lands 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

Sparse Residential 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

Dense Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alpine Tundra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exposed Rock/Talus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Totals 100 3.5 100 17.9 100 8.6 100 56.2 100 17.8 100 46.4

a

 – A 0.25 mile buffer around the eagle nest site.
Table 31. Percent (%) and number (n) of Essential Habitats for Bald Eaglesa

 in Maine by major

land ownerships, 1998.

Land Coastal Sites (n = 158) Inland Sites (n = 164)

Ownership

 Nests Buffers Nests Buffers

___________ _____________ ___________ __________

 % N % km2 % N % km2

Federal

US Department of the Interior

 Park Service 4.43 7 2.04 1.51 0.61 1 0.03 0.02

 Fish and Wildlife Service 2.53 4 1.48 1.09 1.83 3 1.53 1.18

US Department of Agriculture

 Forest Service 0.00

Others 0.63 1 0.08 0.06 0.00

Native Americanb

Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe 4.27 7 1.88 1.45

Penobscot Indian Nation 2.44 4 0.65 0.50

State

Maine Department of Conservation 5.70 9 1.49 1.10 7.32 12 6.71 5.16

Maine Department of Inland

 Fisheries and Wildlife 4.43 7 1.54 1.13 4.88 8 3.99 3.07

Baxter State Park 1.83 3 1.48 1.14

Private

The Nature Conservancy 13.29 21 4.22 3.11

National Audubon Society 0.63 1 0.40 0.29

Maine Coast Heritage Trust 0.63 1 0.32 0.24 0.09 0.07

Maine Audubon Society

The Island Institute 0.63 1 0.29 0.21

Freeport Conservation Trust 0.06 0.04

Others 1.09 0.80

Subtotal 32.91 13.00 9.59 23.17 38 16.36 12.57

Commercial Forestlands 0.63 1 0.99 0.73 34.15 56 24.64 18.94

Other Lands 65.82 104 85.77 63.27 39.63 65 27.36 21.03

Islands not in GIS databasec 0.63 1 0.23 0.17 3.05 5 31.64 24.32

State Total 100.0 158 100.0 73.76 100.0 164 100.0 76.86

a

 – Defined by state regulations as a 0.25 mi. buffer around nest sites.

b

 – Excludes Houlton Band of Maliseets and Aroostook Band of Micmacs who own little forestland. c

 – Some islands were not present in the Conservation and Public Lands Database (i.e., too small to be mapped at the

scale of 1:100,000).

White-tailed Deer: This important game species is near the northern edge of its distribution in

northern Maine and southern Canada. To survive deep snow and prolonged periods of cold

weather, deer concentrate in traditionally used habitats during the winter months termed deer

wintering areas (DWAs). In Maine, DWAs are generally closed-canopy forests, although in the

central, coastal, and southern parts of the state south facing slopes with a variety of overhead
cover are used. The common features of DWAs are they provide both thermal advantages (i.e.,

lessen snow accumulation and increase mobility or facilitate heat gain during daylight hours) and

food (i.e., litter fall in old forests and close proximity to woody browse).

In the state’s organized towns (i.e., towns with local governments) moderate and high value

DWAs are protected under the Maine Natural Resources Protection Act, although the MDIFW

has not formally designated any DWAs to date. In contrast, land use in the unorganized towns,

those townships without local governments, come under the jurisdiction of the Land Use

Regulations Commission (LURC), MDOC. LURC has zoned many DWAs in eastern, western,

and northern Maine. Forestry operations, although allowed in zoned DWAs, are closely

coordinated with the MDIFW.

Deer in Maine are managed geographically by Wildlife Management Districts (WMDs) (see

http://janus.state.me.us/ifw/wmd/wmd.htm). To assess the statewide distribution of DWAs, we

plotted, by WMDs, those DWAs that have been mapped to date by the MDIFW (Figure 17).

Note that the density of mapped DWAs is highest in central and southern Maine, especially in

WMDs 22, 23, and 25 where 10.8 %, 14.2 %, and 9.5 %, respectively, of the non-Open Water

area of the districts are in DWAs. The high density of DWAs in central and southern Maine

could be real or an artifact caused by geographic differences in mapping. All known DWAs are

plotted for central and southern Maine (mostly organized towns) whereas only the LURCregulated DWAs are plotted for the rest of the state (mostly unorganized townships). To

determine how much of the difference in densities of DWAs was real versus the mapping of only

regulated ones in the unorganized portions of Maine, we used the DWA and ME-GAP habitat

data to estimate the percent of (1) WMDs in DWAs (Figure 18a), and (2) WMDs in potential

winter cover (Figure 18b). Potential winter cover was defined as Conifer Forests and Conifer

Forested Wetlands combined. Even though this measure of potential winter cover underestimates winter cover in organized towns (because a wider variety of habitats are used as DWAs

in organized versus unorganized towns), it’s clear from Figure 18 that the most northerly part of

the state, the region most in need of DWAs due to a harsh winter climate (Boone 1997),

currently has a low potential for deer in terms of winter cover. Although northern Maine is

unlikely to ever support deer densities as high as southcentral Maine, this analysis and the higher

densities of deer in northern Maine during historic times, suggests that current low populations

are caused, at least in part, by a lack of adequate winter cover.

Other types of questions that could be addressed with ME-GAP data related to DWAs include:

(1) What is the relationship between the locations of DWAs and other regulated habitats,

specifically wetlands and shorelands?; (2) In those townships with the most severe winters (i.e.,

western and northern Maine), are deer harvests inversely related to the amount of mature conifer

cover, and inversely related to the amount of clearcuts and regenerating habitats?; and (3) If deer

were managed by goals related to population levels versus relative carrying capacity, how much

winter habitat would it take, and where, to obtain these populations?
Baxter

State

Park

Figure 17. Locations of Deer Wintering Areas mapped by

the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in

relation to the Wildlife Management Districts (numbered).
Legend

% of WMD in DWAs

0

0.01 - 2.00

2.01 - 4.00

4.01 - 6.00

6.01 - 8.00

> 8.01

Kilometers

Figure 18. Percent (%) of Wildlife Management Districts (WMDs) in mapped Deer Wintering Areas (DWAs) (A), and

the percent of WMDs in conifer forest as mapped by ME-GAP, 1993 (B). BSP = Baxter State Park; DWAs not inventoried.

Legend

% of WMD in Conifer Forest

0 - 5.0

5.01 - 10.00

10.01 - 15.00

15.01 - 20.00

20.01 - 25.00

BSP BSP

Miles
Representational Analysis

Key questions in land conservation planning are: (1) Has a given set of conservation lands

captured a representative sample of a landscape’s biodiversity and natural variability? If not,

how much more of what has to be conserved before representation is reached? Gap databases,

supplemented with data on climate and other abiotic factors in GIS format, are well suited for

representational analyses. For example, consider the simple question: Has a representative

sample of the elevations in Maine been captured in all land management Categories across the

state? Table 32, below, has the data needed to answer that question.

Table 32. An example representational analysis based on statewide data from ME-GAP. Shown

are the percent (%) and area (km2) of five elevational ranges (m) by land management

Categories.

Elevation

(m)

Categories

1 & 2

Categories

3a & 3b

Category 4 Open Watera Total

_____________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _____________

 % km2 % km2 % km 2 % km2 % km2

1-200 39.4 947 30.3 13,527 81.1 27,333 59.6 2,277 52.1 44,084

201-500 41.8 1,005 58.5 26,090 18.2 6,131 39.5 1,508 41.1 34,734

501-700 9.7 232 8.7 3,886 0.7 222 0.9 33 5.2 4,373

701-1,000 7.1 171 2.5 1,111 0 13 0.1 3 1.5 1,298

> 1,000 2 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 49

Total 100 2,404 100 44,614 100 33,699 100 3,821 100 84,538

a

 – Defined as lakes, ponds, and rivers in USGS Digital Line Graph data at 1:100,000 scale.

Of the five elevation classes in this table, note that most of Maine (52.1 %) is between 1 and 200

m above sea level. In comparison, only 39.4 % of the Category 1 and 2 lands are at the lowest

elevations, meaning that elevations above 201 m are over-represented on Maine’s most

conservatively managed conservation lands. Also note that most (58.5 %) Category 3 (i.e.,

multiple-use forests) lands are in the 201-500 m elevation class whereas most (81.1 %) Category

4 (i.e., private lands) are in the lowest elevation class (1-200 m) (81.2%) (Table 32). We are

currently conducting a representational analysis of Maine’s conservation lands stratified by the

biophysical regions (i.e., Figure 2) based on essentially the variables used to delineate the

regions shown in Figure 2.

Limitations and Discussion

When applying the results of our analyses, it is critical that the following limitations are

considered: 1) the limitations described for each of the component parts (i.e., land cover

mapping, stewardship [i.e., ownership and land management] mapping, and predicted vertebrate
distributions) of the analyses, 2) the spatial and thematic map accuracy of the components, and

3) the suitability of the results for the intended application (see last Chapter and Appendix 12).

In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the analyses shown here are more for illustrative

purposes than for off-the-shelf use. Conservation rankings of species by federal and state

management authorities change frequently and thus the kinds of results shown in Appendix 8

(upon which Table 24 is based) are quickly out of date. Areas defined by the MDIFW as

Essential Habitats are reviewed and updated yearly and also become quickly dated. While we

tried to be realistic with the analyses shown in this chapter, readers should view this chapter

primarily as examples, or potential applications of ME-GAP. Limitations not withstanding, the

databases built for ME-GAP are potentially applicable to a wide range of research and

management issues (Appendix 12). However, applications of the data created by ME-GAP

should be attempted only after consultation with the appropriate management authorities and

careful consideration of the limitations documented in this report in relation to the study

objectives at hand.
93

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Nature, the earth herself, is the only panacea.

Thoreau - Journal, 1859

Introduction

Thoreau’s The Maine Woods, published in 1862, contains an appendix that lists 23 species of

trees, 38 species of small trees and shrubs, 145 small shrubs and herbaceous plants, nine “lower

order” plants, 37 bird species, and seven species of “quadrupeds.” While far from a complete

inventory of the region’s biodiversity [see Gawler et al. (1996) for a more comprehensive

assessment], Thoreau’s book has been widely read and studied for over 130 years, giving

insights and inspirations to generations as to the value of wilderness in general, and the beauty of

the Maine’s forestlands in particular. Recently, interest in the natural diversity and resources of

the forestlands of northern, western, and eastern Maine, collectively known as The North Maine

Woods, has intensified.

Conservation and Management

Controversy regarding the conservation and management of Maine’s forestlands is more intense

today than at any time in the state’s history. Clear-cutting is an issue that has received the most

attention (e.g., Lansky 1992), going to public votes as to whether or not this forest management

practice should be banned (the banned failed but discontent with the practice continues).

Because Maine has the largest blocks of undeveloped forestlands in the eastern USA, these lands

are increasingly of interest to a variety of groups and organizations. The Wilderness Society has

outlined options for protecting Maine’s northern wildlands (Kellett 1989), RESTORE has

proposed a National Park and preserve for the North Maine Woods (RESTORE 1994), Maine

Aubudon Society (MAS) issued a set of maps outlining important areas for conservation (MAS

1996), and, most recently, the Greater Laurentian Wildlands Project (GLWP) made a draft

proposal for wildland reserves in Maine (GLWP 1998). Government has also been active in

holding meetings and preparing reports. A partial sample includes the Maine Legislation, in

1985, establishing a Forests For The Future Program (FFTFP 1988), a joint federal-state regional

effort to look at conserving the northern forests (Northern Forest Lands Council 1994), and

conferences held by the University of Maine to have forestland owners and users explore

conservation and management issues (e.g., Field 1994). From 1994 to present, a collaborative

effort, known as the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project (MFBP), involving landowners,

environmentalists, federal and state natural resources agencies, scientists, and other stakeholders

have periodically meet to discuss biodiversity issues (Vickery 1997). While it is premature to

assess the accomplishments of these efforts, it’s obvious that the conservation agenda in Maine,

both historically and currently, has focused on the North Maine Woods. But the question arises -

should the North Maine Woods be the sole focus of conservation efforts in Maine?

A preliminary assessment of Maine’s terrestrial biodiversity, based on range-level distributions

of vertebrate species, concluded that coastal and southern Maine also deserve conservation

attention (Krohn and Boone 1997). We reiterate that conclusion here. First, if one considers the
94

change of natural habitats to human dominated land uses as the main long-term threat to

biodiversity, then note that not only is the density of humans greatest in coastal and southern

Maine, but it is in these regions where people are currently moving out of cities and towns and

into the less developed countryside (Figure 1). Furthermore, southern and coastal Maine support

the highest richness of terrestrial vertebrates (Figure 6), Threatened and Endangered vertebrates

(Figure 16), and woody plants (Boone 1996), although having only small and scattered Category

2 and 3 conservation lands (Map 6). However, we also note that northwestern Maine, because it

supports a number of species at the southern edge of their ranges (e.g., American Marten, Lynx,

Fox Sparrow), and because the region has so few public conservation lands, also deserves special

consideration in conservation land planning.

A major conservation need in Maine is a system of ecological reserves where natural

communities, including old-growth forests (Davis 1996), can serve as benchmarks for assessing

the affects of management (Gawler et al. 1996; McMahon 1993, 1998). The need for ecological

reserves, as well as the need for additional conservation lands in southern Maine, has recently

been recognized by the State of Maine (Land Acquisition Priorities Advisory Committee

[LAPAC] 1997). However, the size and distribution of ecological reserves being discussed are

designed for plant versus animal communities (McMahon 1998). Thus, for Maine to continue to

support viable populations of terrestrial vertebrates, conservation lands should become, on

average, larger (Figure 13) and more numerous (Map 5) across Maine. However, in a state with

such a low percentage of its lands in public ownership, it’s unrealistic to argue public ownership

as the only solution to vertebrate conservation, although consideration is being given to at least a

modest increase in Maine’s public lands (LAPAC 1997). In addition to increasing Maine’s

public lands, serious consideration must be given to (1) linking existing and future conservation

lands, and (2) managing the working forests that form the habitat matrix between the

conservation lands with biodiversity friendly methods. The preceding suggestions are not either

or choices and which suggestions to follow (if any), and to what degree, depends upon public

will.

Increasing travel corridors such as the Appalachian Trail Corridor would have major

conservation benefits, particularly those that link coastal and interior conservation lands. The

density of people in Maine is greatest along rivers (Figure 1), and because human alteration of

natural habitats is presumably the single largest long-term threat to biodiversity, conserving

riverine habitats would provide critical local habitats as well providing corridors between coastal

and inland conservation lands. In terms of better management of the forest matrix, these lands

are largely in private ownership (Map 5). Thus, the key on these lands will be implementation of

land management practices that will not result in extinctions of native flora or fauna. Private

land in Maine can be viewed as two types: large blocks of forestlands owned by 15 or so

commercial forestry companies, almost all of which is located in unorganized townships (i.e., no

town governments); and (2) smaller woodlots in the organized towns (i.e., towns with local

governments) (Map 6). Development and implementation of biodiversity friendly management

practices will thus require at least two different approaches. Landowners with larger forested

parcels generally have foresters and other resource specialists on staff, detailed forest-type maps,

and access to GIS technology. Thus, these landowners can design and implement detailed forest

management plans that incorporate biodiversity concerns. Owners of smaller parcels, in

contrast, rely more on technical assistance from private and government natural resource
95

specialists, and thus are more dependent on information developed by others. Some guidance on

integrating wildlife conservation into forest management in Maine is already available (e.g.,

Elliott 1988, Venno 1991). In addition, the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project (MFBP) plans to

publish a handbook describing forest management practices that address many biodiversity

conservation concerns.

Clearly, biodiversity conservation will be successful, regardless of the size of the land holding,

only with public support and implementation of practices that prevent species extinction as well

as providing economic returns to landowners. Given the growing public awareness of the

importance of biodiversity, and that commercial forestland owners are hiring resource specialists

knowledgeable in habitat conservation, Maine’s forestlands can continue to provide a wide

variety of ecological and economic benefits. However, as Maine’s forests continue to change

from the days of Thoreau, new knowledge must continuously be discovered and applied to

ensure that the joint goals of ecological sustainability and economic viability are obtained.

Given that most of the state’s human population is in central and southern Maine, especially

along the coast, and that these regions correspond with the locations of the state’s major rivers

(Figure 1), it’s appears that the most extensive habitat loss has probably occurred along these

rivers. Although not well documented, we suspect, based on patterns of human settlement and

current population densities, that bottomland forests and wetlands have been lost and existing

examples of these habitats are at risk, thus deserving more conservation attention, especially in

the lower reaches of the state’s largest rivers. Conservation planning along large rivers needs to

pay special attention to the issues of floodplain and wetland conservation, and there are many

opportunities along Maine’s larger rivers for such integration. For example, the Penobscot River

Valley in central Maine is an expansive lowland with numerous wetlands (Map 1). If one looks

at the east side of this valley from the town of Enfield south to Brewer, a series of wetlands occur

from north to south as follows: the lower portion of the Passadumkeag River, along the middle

part of Olamon Stream, Sunkhaze Meadows, and the Chemo Bog/ Blackman Stream area. Of

these wetlands, only Sunkhaze Meadows is mostly in conservation ownership (i.e., a National

Wildlife Refuge) and the Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy owns some of the

Passadumkeag wetlands (Map 5), specifically along Ayers Brook. Clearly, the opportunities for

more integrated sets of conservation lands in Maine are numerous (Maps 5 and 6).

Because of the high number of vertebrate (and probably also plants and invertebrates, although

we have no direct measures) in wetland habitats, the importance of wetland and shoreland

regulations to conservation in Maine can not be overstated. Riparian (i.e., streamside) and

wetlands habitats form an inter-connected, fine-scale skeleton on the landscape in which coarserscale patches of upland habitats are embedded. Thus, riparian and wetland habitats have

multiple ecological function as well as a number of hydrologic functions. Public benefits such as

habitat and flood control provided by these habitats makes evaluation of existing regulations

protecting these habitats paramount. Clearly, state policy and regulations recognize the values of

these habitats, but how well, or poorly, are current regulations working? More specifically, to

what degree are existing federal, state, and local regulations known, understood, and observed?

If not being widely observed, of what ecological significance are these non-compliances?

Clearly, better knowledge on the condition of Maine’s riparian and wetland habitats is needed,

especially in the more developed portions of the state.
96

In terms of importance of specific wetland types, special consideration must be given to

emergent wetlands and floodplain wetlands, especially along the state’s major rivers where

human populations are highest and threats to floodplain habitats the greatest. Emergent wetlands

occur in Maine where lands have been flooded. Dams, such as those on State Wildlife

Management Areas, have created some of Maine’s largest and most important emergent

wetlands. However, natural factors, specifically beaver impoundments and periodic flooding of

lowlands from runoff, also create emergent wetlands. Beaver ponds are especially dynamic and

although we don’t have any direct measure of how much beaver habitat we have in the state, we

believe that the higher amount of water measured by the satellite data versus USGS digital data

was, at least in part, due to the TM data being sensitive to identifying water, including beaver

ponds. Beaver are a major ecological force in the Maine landscape, directly altering habitats and

the occurrences of many species. Thus, refining the management system for this species,

especially in terms of periodic and statewide habitat inventories, should be given consideration

by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

With < 6 % of the state’s area in conservation lands, the current network of conservation lands is

clearly inadequate in both area and distribution to provide a stand-alone conservation capability

(i.e., all of the state’s plants and animals able to exist solely on these lands, independent of the

surrounding landscape). The State of Maine recognizes the needs for more public lands, but the

goal of these lands relative to biodiversity conservation objectives (e.g., provide adequate habitat

for X % of Maine’s flora and fauna) have not been defined (LAPAC, 1997).

A study by the Maine Forest Service, based on USDA Forest Service 1995 forest inventory of

Maine and using a set of computer models to simulate forest growth and harvest under various

forestry practices, examined the 50-year balance between statewide growth and harvest. The

study concluded that between 1995 and 2045, current forest management will support only 86%

of the current level of harvest (Gadzik et al. 1998). Assuming that technology in the next 50

years will improve and that mill capacity and efficiency will increase for Maine, due to the need

to stay competitive in a worldwide market, the pressure for harvest beyond current levels will be

high. The need for intensive, high-yield forestry such as stand conversion and plantations will

also increase, not only from demand factors but also from a declining supply of spruce and fir

(see citations in Gadzik et al. 1998). Regardless of a lack of widespread negative affects on

terrestrial vertebrates (i.e., no evidence or expectations of increased rates of extinction) from

intensive forestry, concern about high yield practices is driven by philosophical concerns that

may well increase as fast, or faster, that application of the practices themsleves. Thus, beyond

the realm of terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity, public interest and concern about the North Maine

Woods can be expected to remain high, and from a forest yield perspective, for good reason.
97

Research

Our finding that richness of terrestrial vertebrates is higher in southern versus northern Maine is

consistent with the general pattern that species richness increases from the poles towards the

equator (Brown and Lomolino 1998). Because coastal and southern Maine have the warmest

climate and longest growing season in the state (Boone 1997), and richness is often correlated

with productivity, it is not surprising that these two regions of Maine support the highest number

of woody plant species (Boone 1996) as well as terrestrial vertebrates (Figure 6). While the

coarse-scale patterns of species richness are fairly well documented, the reasons explaining these

patterns are not (Brown and Lomolino 1998), and deserve more attention as research topics (for

more details on possible explanations of the richness patterns of terrestrial vertebrates in Maine,

see Boone [1996]). Such research would increase our understanding of species-habitat relations,

knowledge that is fundamental to predicting and understanding the affects of forest management

and other habitat changes on wildlife species and communities (Krohn and Salwasser 1982,

Krohn 1996). Only with a better understanding of the habitat relations of species (plants as well

as animals) can we develop biodiversity friendly management practices that have a reasonable

chance of succeeding (i.e., avoiding extinctions).

Biodiversity conservation is not only concerned with patterns of species richness, but even more

so with identifying and understanding patterns of rarity as a basis for preventing extinctions. In

terms of concentrations of rare plants and animals in Maine, both southern Maine and Mount

Katahdin are critcial (Figure 16). From a biophysical perspective, Mount Katahdin, although

inhabited by relatively few terrestrial vertebrates (Map 4), is unique in that the variety of rare

habitats here support a number of plant and animal species of high conservation priority. In

terms of conserving complementary sets of species (see page 3), we suspect that this goal would

be best served with a set of large conservation lands established in eastern, southern, and

northern Maine.

If marine vertebrates such as seabirds, seals, and whales had been included in ME-GAP, richness

levels along the coast would have been even higher than the numbers reported here. In addition

to excluding marine vertebrates (and all invertebrates, clearly the largest source of species

richness on the earth), ME-GAP did not include fishes. Maine, like the northeast in general, has

a low diversity of freshwater fishes (although having an abundant and diverse array of freshwater

habitats) (Hocutt and Wiley 1986). While the last glaciers that covered eastern North American

left Maine with an abundance and diversity of aquatic habitats (brooks, streams, rivers, ponds,

lakes, marshes, peatlands, etc.), the aquatic fauna associated with such habitats apparently have

not had sufficient time to diversify. Thus, the inclusion of freshwater fishes would have little

effect on overall richness patterns reported here, although some aquatic-specific patterns would

undoubtedly emerge. However, even with a low diversity of inland fishes, Maine’s contribution

to the region’s fish biodiversity could be significant. In a study of the distribution of minnows in

the northeastern USA, only in northern Maine did lakes apparently still support intact

assemblages of native minnows (Whittier et al. 1997). Clearly, there is much yet to learned

about Maine’s biodiversity, especially in aquatic environments (coastal as well as inland) and

with invertebrates across all environments (also see Gawler et al. 1996). New methods should

be researched and developed to encompass additional environments and species beyond the

terrestrial and wetland ecosystems dealt with here.
98

Because Maine is so dependent on commercial forests to provide habitat, a better understanding

of the working landscape is clearly needed. On-going efforts along this line are too numerous to

mention without omitting some projects, but suffice it to say that partnerships to cooperatively

study and understand forestry/habitat relations are, and will continue to be, a vital component of

more biodiversity friendly forest management. Landowners, both small and large, should be

assisted in the identification of important animal and plant habitats, and incentives put in place to

ensure the conservation of these habitats. In terms of identification of wildlife habitats, a joint

publication by the Maine Chapter of The Wildlife Society and University of Maine Cooperative

Extension Service (Elliott 1988) is a good starting point. Also, a manual developed by

the MFBP on biodiversity friendly management in the working forest is available (Elliott

1999). As to incentives, both industry’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative (American Forest & 

Paper Association 1995), and the more market orientated green certification (Society of 

American Foresters 1995), are providing internal, nonregulatory incentives for proactive

 biodiversity management. The success of these voluntary approaches will depend, in part,

on public confidence and confidence in these programs, in term, will depend on information,

independent of commercial interests, about the health and status of the forests. Broad-scale 

habitat maps, such as the one developed for ME-GAP, if done periodically, could provide 

the public with an overview of certain aspects of the condition of Maine’s forestlands

(e.g., the percentage of forestlands in regenerating versus mature trees). Such information

would, hopefully, add a more factual dimension to the public debate on conservation and

management of Maine’s forests.

By merging climatic, geomorphic, and land survey records in a GIS, a pre-settlement map of

Maine’s forest could be created. Similar maps have been produced in the Great Lakes Region

(see http://www.nbs.gov/luhna/cole/index.html), and like there, this historic information is

needed as a baseline with which changes through time in forests, and forestlands, can be

evaluated.

Closing Remarks

In closing, we reiterate that ME-GAP is a statewide assessment of selected elements of

biodiversity and as such had limitations (e.g., inadequate detail to assess plant communities).

Obviously, because major elements of biodiversity, such as invertebrates, were not included,

there is little we can say regarding the conservation of these critically important organisms. We

also acknowledge that there are site-specific issues deserving study that go beyond what the data

presented here can address. We also recognize that there are aesthetic and conservation concerns

that go beyond biodiversity assessments, regardless of taxa covered or data resolution. For

example, scenic value, old-growth forests, recreational uses, remoteness, and wilderness are all

valid conservation issues that were beyond the scope of ME-GAP. Nevertheless, even with these

limitations in mind, we offer this report, and the data contained herein, to the on-going debate on

conservation and land management in Maine. To the extent that these data help to move the

debate forward along factual and logical lines, we will consider our efforts in producing MEGAP a success.
99

PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILITY

How To Obtain the Products

It is the goal of the Gap Analysis Program and the USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD)

to make the data and associated information as widely available as possible. Use of the data

requires specialized software called geographic information systems (GIS) and substantial

computing power. Additional information on how to use the data or obtain GIS services is

provided below and on the GAP home page (URL below). While a CD-ROM of the data will be

the most convenient way to obtain the data, it may also be downloaded via the Internet from the

national GAP home page at:

http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap

The home page will also provide, over the long term, the status of state’s project, future updates,

data availability, and contacts. Within a few months of this project’s completion, CD-ROMs of

the final report and data should be available at a nominal cost; the above home page will provide

ordering information. To find information on this state GAP project status and data, follow the

links or the above home page to the particular state of interest.

With the completion of ME-GAP, the long-term maintenance, revision, and application of the

GIS databases is a concern. In addition to these data becoming part of the National Biological

Information Infrastructure of the USGS Biological Resources Division, these databases will be

housed and used by various state agencies. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife will continue to use the vertebrate data (i.e., range limits and habitat associations) and

vegetation and land cover map; the Maine Image Analysis Laboratory, University of Maine, will

store and use the TM and aerial videography data; and the Maine Office of GIS will maintain

and distribute the conservation and public lands database created by SPO and ME-GAP. In the

end, the relative success of this project should be judged on how long these databases are revised

and reused in the decision-making processes affecting Maine’s biological resources.

Disclaimer

Following is the official Biological Resources Division (BRD) disclaimer as of 29 January,

1996, followed by additional disclaimers from GAP. Prior to using the data, you should consult

the GAP home page (above) for the current disclaimer.

Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no

warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other

system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such

warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with

other data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server

[see above for approved data providers] and not indirectly through other sources which may

have changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be

paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources

Division shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or

contained herein.
100

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the

limitations of the data. These data are meant to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such

as 1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of animals and

vegetation types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been assessed

for statistical accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The Biological

Resources Division makes no claim as to the data's suitability for other purposes. This is

writable data, which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from a

designated data distributor identified above.

Metadata

Proper documentation of all information sources used to assemble GAP data layers is central to

the scientific defensibility of GAP. The information used to describe GAP data is called

metadata. Metadata are information about data. Metadata contain information about the

source(s), lineage, content, structure, and availability of a data set. Metadata also describe

intentions, limitations, and potential uses, allowing for the informed and appropriate application

of the data. Descriptions of metadata function have recently been published by the Federal

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 1994, 1995).

The GAP metadata standards have been closely matched to the FGDC standards to ensure

current and future compatibility. As the FGDC standards evolve beyond the current publication,

we anticipate corresponding refinements in GAP documentation. The format of the GAP

metadata consists of eight major documentation sections, shown below, containing one or more

metadata elements. Each element is named (e.g., Map Projection Name), and the "Type" of

entry (text, integer, date, time) and "Domain" of the entry (i.e., x > 0) are also defined. Metadata

Data Element Categories are as follows:

I Identification Information: What the data set is called, file format

description.

II Data Quality Information: Accuracy, consistency, and data sources.

III Spatial Data Organization Information: Data structure--raster, vector,

point, etc.

IV Spatial Reference Information: Coordinate units, map projection, spatial

resolution.

V Entity and Attribute Information: Attribute codes and reference citations.

VI Distribution Information: How to order the data, on-line access, transfer

size.

VII Metadata Reference Information: Date of the metadata, contact for

metadata updates.

XIII Contact Information: General data contact, mail, voice, fax, web, e-mail.
101

Demands for metadata will increase as electronic networks expand across the national and

international scene, and more requests are made for distribution of information. As the number

of users and the diversity of disciplines and programs sharing the data expand, the information

carried by metadata will become increasingly important. One of the goals in defining today's

metadata standards is to anticipate these future needs. For additional information on GAP and

metadata via Internet, see the following:

http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap

waisqvarsa.er.usgs.gov (anonymous ftp, cd to wais/docs, get FGDCmeta6894.ps)

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/metadata/standard/metadata.html

Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses

All information is created with a specific end use or uses in mind. This is especially true for GIS

data, which is expensive to produce and must be directed to meet the immediate program needs.

For GAP, minimum standards were set (see A Handbook for Gap Analysis, Scott et al. 1993) to

meet program objectives. These standards include: scale or resolution (1:100,000 or 100 hectare

minimum mapping unit), accuracy (80% accurate at 95% confidence), and format (ARC/INFO

coverage tiled to the USGS quadrangle).

Recognizing, however, that GAP would be the first, and for many years likely the only, source of

statewide biological GIS maps, the data were created with the expectation that they would be

used for other applications. Therefore, we list below both appropriate and inappropriate uses.

This list is in no way exhaustive but should serve as a guide to assess whether a proposed use can

or cannot be supported by GAP data. For most uses, it is unlikely that GAP will provide the only

data needed, and for uses with a regulatory outcome, field surveys should verify the result. In

the end, it will be the responsibility of each data user to determine if GAP data can answer the

question being asked, and if they are the best tool to answer that question.

Scale: First we must address the issue of appropriate scale to which these data may be applied.

The data were produced with an intended application at the ecoregion level, that is, geographic

areas from several hundred thousand to millions of hectares in size. The data provide a coarsefilter approach to analysis, meaning that not every occurrence of every plant community or

animal species habitat is mapped, only larger, more generalized distributions. The data are also

based on the USGS 1:100,000 scale of mapping in both detail and precision. When determining

whether to apply GAP data to a particular use, there are two primary questions: do you want to

use the data as a map for the particular geographic area, or do you wish to use the data to provide

context for a particular area? The distinction can be made with the following example: You

could use GAP land cover to determine the approximate amount of hardwood forests occurring

in a county, or you could map shade tolerant and intolerant hardwoods with aerial photography

to determine the exact amounts of these more specific types. You then could use GAP data to

determine the approximate percentage of all harwood forests in the region or state that occurs in

the county, and thus gain a sense of how important the county’s distribution is to maintaining

this forest type.
102

Appropriate Uses: The above example illustrates two appropriate uses of the data; as a coarse

map for a large area such as a county, and to provide context for finer-level maps. Specific casestudy examples are provided in Appendix 12, but following is a general list of applications:

· Statewide biodiversity planning

· Regional (Councils of Government) planning

· Regional habitat conservation planning

· County comprehensive planning

· Large-area resource management planning

· Coarse-filter evaluation of potential impacts or benefits of major projects or plan initiatives

on biodiversity, such as utility or transportation corridors, wilderness proposals, regional

open space and recreation proposals, etc.

· Determining relative amounts of management responsibility for specific biological resources

among land stewards to facilitate cooperative management and planning.

· Basic research on regional distributions of plants and animals and to help target both specific

species and geographic areas for needed research.

· Environmental impact assessment for large projects or military activities.

· Estimation of potential economic impacts from loss of biological resource based activities.

· Education at all levels and for both students and citizens.

Inappropriate Uses: It is far easier to identify appropriate uses than inappropriate ones, however,

there is a fuzzy line that is eventually crossed when the differences in resolution of the data, size

of geographic area being analyzed, and precision of the answer required for the question are no

longer compatible. Examples include:

· Use of the data to map small areas (less than thousands of hectares), typically requiring

mapping resolution at 1:24,000 scale and using aerial photographs or ground surveys.

· Combining GAP data with other data finer than 1:100,000 scale to produce new hybrid maps

or answer queries.

· Generating specific areal measurements from the data finer than the nearest thousand

hectares (minimum mapping unit size and accuracy affect this precision).

· Establishing exact boundaries for regulation or acquisition.

· Establishing definite occurrence or nonoccurrence of any feature for an exact geographic area

(for land cover, the percent accuracy will provide a measure of probability).

· Determining abundance, health, or condition of any feature.

· Establishing a measure of accuracy of any other data by comparison with GAP data.

· Altering the data in any way and redistributing them as a GAP data product.

· Using the data without acquiring and reviewing the metadata and this report
103

LITERATURE CITED

Adamus, P.R. (editor). 1987. Atlas of breeding birds of Maine, 1978-1983. Maine

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine. 366 pp.

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 1995. Sustainable forestry – principles

and implementation guidelines. AF&PA, Washington, DC. 9 pp.

Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land

cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 964. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 28 pp.

Andrews, J.S. 1995. A preliminary atlas of the reptiles and amphibians of Vermont. The

Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Scientific Advisory Group, Vermont Field Office of

The Nature Conservance, and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife

Nongame and Natural Heritage Program. 64 pp.

Austin, M.P. 1991. Vegetation: Data collection and analysis. Pages 37-41 In Margules,

C.R. and M.P. Austin. (editors). Nature conservation: Cost effective biological

surveys and data analysis. Australia CSIRO, East Melborne.

Avery, M.L. and C. Van Riper II. 1990. Evaluation of wildlife-habitat relationships

 database for predicting bird community composition in central California chaparral

 and blue oak woodlands. California Fish and Game 76:103-117.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press,

Toronto, Ontario. 438 pp.

Bartlett, R.I., J.A. Hepinstall, and W.B. Krohn. 1997. Maine wildlife habitats identified

from spring versus fall aerial photography (poster and abstract). Page 135 In

Ostrofsky, W.D., and W.B. Krohn. (editors). Our forest’s place in the world: New

England and Atlantic Canada’s forests. Maine Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 98-01, University of Maine, Orono, 146 pp.

Bartlett, R.I., S.A. Sader, and W.B. Krohn. 1995. Identification of selected wildlife

habitat types in Maine from aerial photography (poster). National Convention of the

Society of American Foresters, Portland, Maine.

Bider, J.R. and S. Matte. 1994. Atlas des amphibiens et des reptiles du Quebec.

 Societe d’histore naturelle de la vallee du Saint-Laurent et ministere de

 l’Environnement et de la Faune du Quebec, Rirection de la faune et des habitats,

 Quebec. 106 pp.

Black, J.D. 1950. The rural economy of New England. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts. 796 pp.
104

Bleakney, J.S. 1958. A zoogeographical study of the amphibians and reptiles of eastern

 Canada. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 155, Biological Series No. 54,

 Queen’s Printer, Ottawa. 119 pp.

Boone, R.B. 1996. An assessment of terrestrial vertebrate diversity in Maine. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 222 pp.

Boone, R.B. 1997. Modeling the climate of Maine for use in broad-scale ecological

analyses. Northeastern Naturalist 4:213-230.

Boone, R.B. and W.B. Krohn. 1998a. Maine gap analysis vertebrate data - Part I:

 distribution, habitat relations, and status of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals in

 Maine. Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maine,

 Orono. 175 pp. plus appendices.

Boone, R.B. and W.B. Krohn. 1998b. Maine gap analysis vertebrate data - Part II:

 distribution, habitat relations, and status of breeding birds in Maine. Maine

 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maine, Orono. 367 pp.

 plus appendices.

Boone, R.B. and W.B. Krohn. 1999. Modeling the occurrence of bird species -

 are the errors predicable? Ecological Applications, 9:835-848.

Boone, R.B. and W.B. Krohn. 1998. Feathering predicted species distributionnear range 

limits in Maine. Gap Analysis Bulletin No. 7. Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Boone, R.B. and W.B. Krohn. In Press. Partitioning sources of variation invertebrate

species richness in Maine. Journal of Bibliography.

Bourgeron, P.S., H.C. Humphries, R.L. DeVelice, and M.E. Jensen. 1994. Ecological

theory in relation to landscape and ecosystem characterization. Pages 58-72 In

Jensen, M.E. and P.S. Bourgeron. (editors). Ecosystem management: Principles and

applications, Volume II. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, Oregon: US

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

376 pp.

Brown, J.H., and M.V. Lomolino. 1998. Biogeography. Sinauer Associates Publishers,

Sunderland, Massachusetts. 691 pp.

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals. Houghton

 Millfin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 289 pp.

Caicco, S.L., J.M. Scott, B. Butterfield, and B. Csuti. 1995. A gap analysis of the

management status of the vegetation of Idaho (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology

9:498-511.
105

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern

 and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

 450 pp.

Congalton, R.G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely

sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment 37:35-46.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of

wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Publication No. FWS/OBS79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 103 pp.

Crist, P., B. Thompson, and J. Prior-Magee. 1995. A dichotomous key of land

management categorization, unpublished. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Csuti, B. 1994. Methods for developing terrestrial vertebrate distribution maps for Gap

Analysis (version 1). In Scott, J.M. and M.D. Jennings. (editors). A handbook for

Gap Analysis. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of

Idaho, Moscow.

Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D. Camm, M. Kershaw, A.R.

Kiester, B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso, and K. Sahr. 1997. A comparison of

reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon.

Biological Conservation 80:83-97.

Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, D.M. Stoms, M.I. Borchert, and A.D. Hollander. 1995. Gap

Analysis of the actual vegetation of California - 1. The southwestern region.

Madroño 42:40-78.

Davis, M.B. (editor). 1996. Eastern old-growth forests: prospects for rediscovery and

 recovery. Island Press, Washington, DC. 383 pp.

Davis, R.B., and G.L. Jacobson, Jr. 1985. Late glacial and early holocene landscapes in

northern New England and adjacent areas of Canada. Quaternary Research

23:341-368.

DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1986. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history,

 and distribution. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,

 General Technical Report NE-108. 491 pp.

Diamond, J. 1986. The design of a nature reserve system for Indonesian New Guinea.

Pages 485-503 In Soulé, M.E. (editor). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity

and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Dilworth, T. 1984. Land mammals of New Brunswick. University of New Brunswick,

 Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. 228 pp.
Dobson, A.P., J.P. Rodriguez, W.M. Roberts, and D.S. Wilcove. 1997. Geographic distribution of

endangered species in the United States. Science 275:550-553.

Driscoll, R.S., D.L. Merkel, J.S. Hagihara, and D.L. Radloff. 1983. A component land

classification for the United States: Status report. Technical Note 360. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver.

Driscoll, R.S., D.L. Merkel, D.L. Radloff, D.E. Snyder, and J.S. Hagihara. 1984. An

ecological land classification framework for the United States. Miscellaneous

Publication 1439. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Dubuc, L.J., W.B. Krohn, and R.B. Owen, Jr. 1990. Predicting occurrence of river otters

by habitat on Mount Desert Island, Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54: 594-599.

Duduc, L.J., R.B. Owen, Jr., W.B. Krohn, and C.J. Schell. 1991. Foods and distribution of River Otter on

Mount Desert Island, Maine. Transactions of the Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society. 48:104-112.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., C.H. Homer, S.D. Bassett, A. Falconer, R.D. Ramsey, and D.W. Wight.

1995. Utah Gap Analysis: An environmental information system. Technical Report 95-1,

Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., E.T. Deshler, D. Foster, and G.G. Moien. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation

models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology 10:263-270.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., G.G. Moisen, and D.R. Cutler. 1998. Assessing map accuracy in a

remotely sensed, ecoregion-scale cover map. Remote Sensing and the Environment 63:73-83.

Elliott, C.A. (editor). 1988. A forester’s guide to managing wildlife habitats in Maine. Maine

Chapter of The Wildlife Society and University of Maine Cooperative Extension

Service. University of Maine, Orono. 46 pp. plus appendices.

Elliott, C.A. (Editor). 1999. Biodiversity in the forests of Maine: guidelines for land management.

Maine Cooperative Extension Bulletin #7147, University of Maine, Orono. 168 pp.

Erskine, A.J. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds of the Maritime Provinces. Co-published by

the Crown and Nova Scotia Museum. 270 pp. plus maps.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1994. Content standards for digital

geospatial metadata. 8 June 1994. FGDC, Washington, DC.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1995. Content standards for digital

geospatial metadata workbook, FGDC, Washington, DC.

106
107

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee (FGDC-VS). 1997.

FGDC Vegetation Classification and Information Standards--June 3, 1996 Draft.

FGDC Secretariat, Reston, Virginia. 35 pp.

Field, D.B. (editor). 1994. Proceedings Second Annual Munsungan Conference – The

triad concept for Maine’s future forest: a model for harmony or discord? College of

Natural Resources, Forestry, and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, 51 pp.

Fiorella, M., and W.J. Ripple. 1993. Determining successional stage of temperate

coniferous forests with Landsat satellite data. Photogrammetric Engineering and

Remote Sensing 59:239-246.

Forbes, C.B. 1946. Climatic divisions of Maine. Maine Technical Experiment Station,

University Press Bulletin No. 40, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

Forest For The Future Program (FFTFP). 1988. Forest for the future - a report on

Maine’s forest to the Legislator, the Governor, and the people of Maine. FFTFP,

Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine. 40 pp.

Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New

York, New York.

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics – The ecology of landscapes and regions.

 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 632 pp.

Foss, C.R. (editor). 1994. Atlas of breeding birds of New Hampshire. Audubon Society

 of New Hampshire and Acadia Publishing, Dover, New Hampshire. 414 pp.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes?

Ecological Applications 3:202-205.

Gadzikm C.J., J.H. Blanck, and L.E. Cadwell. 1998. Timber supply outlook for Maine:

1995-2045. Maine Forest Service, Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine.

40pp.

Gauthier, J. and Y. Aubry. 1996. The breeding birds of Quebec: Atlas of the breeding

 birds of southern Quebec. Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds and

 the Canadian Wildlife Service, Montreal, Quebec. 1,302 pp.

Gawler, S.C., J.J. Albright, P.D. Vickery, and F.C. Smith. 1996. Biological diversity in

Maine: an assessment of status and trends in the terrestrial and freshwater landscape.

Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine. 80 pp.

plus appendices.

Gibbs, J.P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations

 of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13:25-31.
108

Gibbs, J.P., J.R. Longcore, D.G. McAuley, and J.K. Ringelman. 1991. Use of wetland

habitats by selected nongame water birds in Maine. US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Fish and Wildlife 9, Washington, DC. 66pp.

Gilhen, J. 1984. Amphibians and reptiles of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Museum,

 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 162 pp.

Godin, A.J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. John Hopkins University Press,

 Baltimore, Maryland. 304 pp.

Greater Laurentian Wildlands Project (GLWP). 1998. Maine Wildlands Reserve Project

Draft Proposal. GLWP, South Burlington, Vermont. 15 pp. plus maps.

Griffith, D.M., and C.L. Alerich. 1996. Forest statistics for Maine - 1995. USDA Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin NE-135, Radnor,

Pennsylvania. 134 pp.

Grossman, D., K.L Goodin, X. Li, C. Wisnewski, D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Anderson, L.

Sneddon, D. Allard, M. Gallyoun, and A. Weakley. 1994. Standardized national

vegetation classification system. Report by The Nature Conservancy and

Environmental Systems Research Institute for the NBS/NPS Vegetation Mapping

Program. National Biological Service, Denver, Colorado.

Hagan, J.M., and S.L.Grove. 1996. 1995 Report: Selection Cutting, Old Growth, Birds,

and Forest Structure in Maine. Manomet Observatory for Conservation Sciences,

Manomet, Massachusets. Report No. MODCF-96002. 26 pp.

Hagan, J.M., P.S. McKinley, A.L. Meehan, and S. L. Grove. 1997. Diversity and

abundance of landbirds in northeastern industrial forest. Journal of Wildlife

Management 61:718-735.

Hepinstall, J.A., S.A. Sader, W.B. Krohn, R.B. Boone and R.I. Bartlett. 1999. Development

and testing of a vegetation and land cover map of Maine. Maine Agriculture and Forestry

Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 173. University of Maine. Orono. 104 pp.

Hocutt. C.H., and E.O. Wiley. (editors). The Zoogeography of North American

freshwater fishes. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 866 pp.

Hunter, M.L. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Science,

Cambridge, Massachusets. 482 pp.

Hunter, M.L., Jr., J. Albright, and J. Arbuckle. (editors). 1992. The amphibians and

 reptiles of Maine. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 838, University of

 Maine, Orono. 188 pp.
109

Jacobson, G.L., T. Webb III, and E. C. Grimm. 1987. Patterns and rates of vegetation

change during the deglaciation of eastern North America. Pages 277-288 In

Ruddiman, W.F. and H.E. Wright, Jr. (editors) North America During Deglaciation.

The Geology of North America. DNAG vol. K3, Geological Society of America,

Boulder, Colorado.

Jenkins, R.E. 1985. Information methods: Why the Heritage Programs work. The

Nature Conservancy News 35:21-23.

Jennings, M.D. 1993. Natural terrestrial cover classification: Assumptions and

definitions. Gap Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Kellett, M.J. 1989. A new Maine woods reserve - options for protecting Maine’s

northern wildlands. The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC. 48 pp.

Kelly, R.D., Jr. 1989. Maine land in state and federal conservation ownership – a guide

to the maps. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta. 49 pp.

Kelly, R.D., Jr. 1989. Maine land in federal, state, municipal, and nonprofit conservation

ownership – a guide to the maps. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta. 67 pp.

Kendall, D.L. 1993. Glaciers and granite - a guide to Maine’s landscape and geology.

North Country Press, Unity, Maine. 240 pp.

Kiester, A.R., J.M. Scott, B. Csuti, R.F. Noss, and B. Butterfield, K. Sahr, and D. White.

1996. Conservation prioritization using GAP data. Conservation Biology 10:1332-

1342.

Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of

nature reserves: An example from Tasmania. Biological Conservation 25:127-134.

Klemens, M.W. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles of Connecticut and adjacent regions.

 State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin No. 112,

 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford. 318 pp.

Krohn, W.B. 1996. Predicted vertebrate distributions from Gap Analysis: considerations

in the designs of statewide accuracy assessments. Pages 147-162 In Scott, J.M., T.H.

Tear, and F.W. Davis. (editors). Gap Analysis - a landscape approach to biodiversity

planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda,

Maryland. 320 pp.

Krohn, W.B., and H. Salwasser. 1982. Opening remarks: habitat classification -

assessments for wildlife and fish. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference. 47:33-34.
110

Krohn, W.B., S.A. Sader, Z. Yin, R.B. Boone, R.I. Bartlett, and A. Guay. 1995. Use of

aerial videography to create a habitat map for Maine (poster). National Convention

of the Society of American Foresters, Portland, Maine.

Krohn, W.B. and R.B. Boone. 1997. Biodiversity and the north Maine woods - what’s

 all the fuss? Page 1 In Ostrofsky, W.D. and W.B. Krohn. (editors). Our forest’s

 place in the world: New England and Atlantic Canada’s forests. Maine Agricultural

 and Forestry Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 738, University of Maine,

 Orono. 146 pp.

Krohn, W.B., and R.D. Kelly, Jr. 1997. A conservation and public lands database for

Maine: project history and database documentation. (Unpublished). Maine

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maine, Orono. 16 pp.

Krohn, W.B., R.B. Boone, and S.L. Painton. 1999. Quantitative delineation and

characterization of hierarchical biophysical regions of Maine. Northeastern

Naturalist 6:125-150.

Küchler, A.W., and I.S. Zonneveld. (editors). 1988. Vegetation mapping. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 635 pp.

Land Acquisition Priorities Advisory Committee. 1997. Final report and

recommendations of the Land Acquisition Priorities Advisory Committee (LAPAC).

LAPAC. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine. 22 pp. plus appendices.

Lansky, M. 1992. Beyond the beauty strip - saving what’s left of our forests. Tilbury

House Publishers, Gardiner, Maine. 453 pp.

Levin, S.A. 1981. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1942-1968.

Lillesand, T.M., and R.W. Kiefer. 1994. Remote sensing and image interpretation.

Third edition, Wiley, New York, New York. 750 pp.

Lins, K.F., and R.L. Kleckner. 1996. Land use and land cover mapping in the United

States: an overview and history of the concept. Pages 75-65 In Scott, J.M., T.H.

Tear, and F.W. Davis. (editors). Gap Analysis - a landscape approach to biodiversity

planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda,

Maryland. 320 pp.

Lorimar, C.G. 1977. The presettlement forest and natural disturbance cycle of

northeastern Maine. Ecology 58:139-148.

Maine Audubon Society (MAS). 1996. Solutions for the future of Maine’s woods,

water, wildlife, and hard-working forest communities. Pamphlet published by the

MAS, Falmouth, Maine. Unpaged with maps.
111

Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT) and the Maine Land Trust Network (MLTN).

1998. Maine Land Trust Directory and Resource Guide, MCHT and MLTN,

Brunswick, Maine. 117 pp. plus appendices.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 1998. Atlas of essential

wildlife habitats for Maine’s endangered and threatened species. MDIFW, Augusta,

Maine. unpaged.

Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 1998. A natural heritage inventory of the

Appalachian Trail in Maine. Report to the Appalachian Trail Conference and the

National Park Service. MNPD, Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta. 135 pp.

plus appendices and map.

Margules, C.R., A.O. Nicholls, and R.L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves

to maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63-76.

McAlpine, D.F. 1997. Hisotrical evidence does not suggest New Brunswick amphibians

 have declined. In Green, D. M. (editor). Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of

 a global problem. Herpetological Conservation 1:117-127.

McCall, T.C., T.P. Hodgman, D.R. Diefenback, and R.B. Owen, Jr. 1996. Beaver

populations and their relation to wetland habitat and breeding waterfowl in Maine.

Wetlands 16:163-172.

McMahon, J.S. 1993. Saving all the pieces - an ecological reserves proposal from Maine.

Maine Naturalist 1:213-222.

McMahon, J. 1998. An ecological reserves system inventory: potential ecological

reserves on Maine’s existing public and private conservation lands. Maine Forest

Biodiversity Project and Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine. 122 pp.

Merrill, E.H., T.W. Kohley, M.E. Herdendorf, W.A. Reiners, K.L. Driese, R. W. Marrs,

and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Wyoming Gap Analysis - a geographic analysis of

biodiversity. USGS Biological Resources Division, Gap Analysis Program and

Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, Wyoming. 109 pp.

plus appendices.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.

John Wiley & Sons, New York. 547 pp.

Northern Forest Lands Council (NFLC). 1994. Finding common ground: conserving

the northern forest. Recommendations of the NFLC, Maine State Library, Augusta,

Maine. 98 pp. plus appendices.

Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A

look at the Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11-37.
112

Noss, R.F. 1991. Report to the Fund for Animals in Washington, DC.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy - protecting and

restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. 417 pp.

Noss, R.F., E.T LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United

States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28,

National Biological Service, Washington, DC.

O’Hara, F. 1997. The cost of sprawl. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.

20 pp.

Odum, E.P., and H.T. Odum. 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s

total environment. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural

Resources Conference 39:189.

Oliveri, S.F. 1993. Bird responses to habitat changes in Baxter State Park, Maine. Maine

Naturalist 1:145-154

Owen, R.B., Jr., C.S. Todd, M.A. McCollough, and F.J. Gramlich. 1991. Nesting history

and population status of Maine’s Bald Eagles. Transactions of the Northeast Section

of the Wildlife Society. 48:21-30.

Pressey, R.L., and A.O. Nicholls. 1989. Application of a numerical algorithm to the

selection of reserves in semi-arid New South Wales. Biological Conservation

50:263-278.

Pressey, R.L., C.J. Humphries, C.R. Margules, R.I. Vane-Wright, and P.H. Williams.

1993. Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends

in Ecology and Evolution 8:124-128.

RESTORE. 1994. Maine Woods - a proposed National Park and preserve: a vision of

what could be. Pamphlet published by RESTORE: The North Maine Woods,

Concord, Massachusetts. Unpaged.

Richards, T. 1994. A proposed division of New Hampshire into avifaunal regions based

 largely on the altitudnal distribution of breeding birds. Pages I-25 thru I-31 In Foss,

 C.R., Atlas of Breeding Birds of New Hampshire. Audubon Society of New

 Hampshire and Acadia Publishing, Dover, New Hampshire. 414 pp.

Rock, B.N., J.E. Vogelmann, D.L. Williams, A.F. Vogelmann, and T. Hoshizaki. 1986.

Remote detection of forest damage. Bioscience 36:439-445.
113

Sader, S.A. 1989. An evaluation of satellite image classification techniques to assess

spruce/fir regeneration in northern Maine. Maine Agriculture and Forestry

Experiment Station, University of Maine, Miscellaneous Report No. 333. 7 pp.

Sader, S.A. 1990. Multispectral and seasonal characteristics of northern hardwood and

boreal forest types in Maine. Pages 109-116 In Image Processing 89, University of

Nevada - Reno, ASPRS, Bethesda, Maryland.

Sader, S.A., D. Ahl, and W. Liou. 1995. Accuracy of Landsat-TM and GIS rule-based

methods for forest wetland classification in Maine. Remote Sensing of Environment

53:133-144.

Sader, S.A., R.B. Waide, W. T. Lawrence, and A.T. Joyce. 1989. Tropical forest biomass

and successional age class relationships to a vegetation index derived from LandsatTM data. Remote Sensing of Environment 28:143-156.

Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S.

 Caicco, F.D. Erchia, T.C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, and R.G. Wright. 1993.

 Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife

 Monographs 123:1-41.

Scott, J.M., and M.D. Jennings. (editors). 1994. A handbook for Gap Analysis. Idaho

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Unpaged.

Scott, J.M., T.H. Tear, and F.W. Davis. (editors). 1996. Gap Analysis – a landscape

approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and

Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland. 320pp.

Simpson, G.G. 1964. Species density of North American recent mammals. Systematic

 Zoology 13:57-73.

Society of American Foresters. 1995. Journal of Forestry. Volume 93, Number 4 is

 devoted to articles on green certification (note especially McNulty, J.W. and J.H

 Cashwell. The land manager’s perspective on certification, pages 22-25; an article

 about what Seven Islands Land Company is doing in northern Maine).

Slaymaker, D.M., K.M. L. Jones, C.R. Griffin, and J.T. Finn. 1996. Mapping deciduous

forests in southern New England using videography and hyperclustered multitemporal Landsat TM imagery. Pages 87-101 In Scott, J.M., T.H. Tear, and F.W.

Davis. (editors). Gap Analysis - a landscape approach to biodiversity planning.

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland.

320 pp.
114

Specht, R.L. 1975. The report and its recommendations. Pages 11-16 In Fenner, F.

(editor). A national system of ecological reserves in Australia. Australian Academy

of Sciences Report No. 19. Canberra, Australia

Specht, R.L., E.M. Roe, and V.H. Boughlon. 1974. Australian Journal of Botany

Supplement Series. Supplement No. 7.

Stockwell, S.S. 1985. Distribution and abundance of amphibians, reptiles, and small

 mammals in eight types of Maine peatland vegetation. M. S. Thesis, University of

 Maine, Orono, Maine. 70 pp.

Stockwell, S.S. 1994. Habitat selection and community organization of birds in eight

 peatlands of Maine. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 115 pp.

Stolt, M.H. and J.C. Baker. 1995. Evaluation of National Wetland[sic] Inventory maps

 to inventory wetlands in the southern Blue Ridge of Virginia. Wetlands 15:346-353.

Stoms, D., and J. Estes. 1993. A remote sensing research agenda for mapping and

monitoring biodiversity. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14:1839-1860.

Stoms, D.M. 1994. Actual vegetation layer. In Scott, J.M., and M.D. Jennings.

(editors). A handbook for Gap Analysis. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Stoms, D.M., F.W. Davis, K.L. Driese, K.M. Cassidy, and M.P. Murray. 1998. Gap

 analysis of the vegetation of the intermountain semi-desert ecoregion. Great Basin

 Naturalist 58:199-216.

Taylor, J. 1993. The amphibians and reptiles of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Fish

 and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire. 71 pp.

Tucker, C.J. 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring

vegetation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 8:127-150.

UNESCO. 1973. International classification and mapping of vegetation. Paris.

Venno, S.A. 1991. Integrating wildlife habitat into local planning: a handbook for

Maine Communities. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Misc. Publ. 712,

University of Maine, Orono. 54 pp.

Vickery, B. 1997. The Maine Forest Biodiversity Project: a promising model. Pages 2-7

 In: Ostrofsky, W.D. and W.B. Krohn. (editors). Our forest’s place in the world: New

 England and Atlantic Canada’s forest. Maine Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

 Station, Miscellaneous Publication 738, University of Maine, Orono. 146 pp.
115

Witham, J.W., E.H. Moore, M.L. Hunter, Jr., A.J. Kimball, and A.S. White. 1993. A

long-term study of an oak pine forest ecosystem: techniques manual for the Holt

Research Forest. Maine Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, University of

Maine, Orono, Maine. Technical Bulletin 153. 164 pp.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California.

Ecological Monographs 30:279-338.

Whittaker, R.H. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science, 147:

250-259.

Whittaker, R.H. 1977. Species diversity in land communities. Evolutionary Biology 10:1-

67.

Whittier, T.R., D.B. Halliwell, and S. G. Paulsen. 1997. Cyprinid distribution in

northeast U.S.A. lakes: evidence of regional-scale minnow biodiversity losses.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1,593-1,607.

Williams, P.H., D. Gibbons, C. Margules, A. Rebelo, C. Humphries, and R. Pressey.

1996. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas

for conserving diversity of British birds. Conservation Biology 10:155-174.

Yarborough, D.E. 1996. Wild blueberry culture in Maine. Cooperative Extension

 Service, Fact Sheet # 220 (Bulletin # 2088), University of Maine, Orono. 4 pp.

Zimmerman, G. 1998. Inventory and habitat use of bats along the central coast of

Maine. M. S. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 53 pp.
116

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

aerial videography: Images of the land surface taken with videography cameras from an

airplane. A Global Position System (GPS), through a time code on each frame of video,

allows the position of videography on the ground (and TM data) to be precisely

determined.

alliance level: A land unit made up of an alliance of natural communities that have the

same dominant or co-dominant plant species or, in the absence of vegetation, have the

same dominant land cover typically described according to the Anderson land cover

classification [see Natural Community Alliance in Grossman et al. (1995)].

anthropogenic: Caused by humans.

AML (Arc Macro Language): ARC/INFOb’s scripting language, where a series of

commands and branching decisions may be included in a program, and submitted to ARC

for processing. Programs may be simple or complex, producing predicted distributions,

managing data, or making maps, for example.

association: The classification level of vegetation synonymous with community type

used by GAP. Plants in the subdominant canopy shrub layers contribute to the definition

of the vegetation type (e.g., Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry).

band, spectral: A segment of the electromagnetic spectrum defined by a range of

wavelengths (e.g., blue, green, red, near infrared, far infrared) that comprise the Landsat

TM imagery.

biodiversity: A shortened form of biological diversity, referring to the variety and

variability of living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. This

definition encompasses diversity at all levels of biological organization (e.g., ecosystems,

species, and genes). As there is no single measure of biodiversity, a variety of indicators

have been suggested as surrogates for biodiversity (e.g., species richness).

biodiversity hotspots: Areas with a high number of species (i.e., high species richness).

biophysical region: See ecoregion.

classification, digital: A computer-assisted approach to developing land cover maps

from digital imagery, in which image pixels are classified based on statistical differences

in spectral characteristics (see supervised and unsupervised classification).

coarse filter strategy: An approach to conserving biodiversity focusing on large

ecological units, usually but not exclusively focusing on spatial rather than organismal

concepts that make up the higher levels in the biodiversity hierarchy (e.g., landscapes,

ecosystems, communities).
117

coarse scale: A relative scale of spatial analysis indicating the use of mapping units that

cover a large area with lesser detail. The ratio of map length to true length is small (e.g.,

1:5,000,000 as opposed to 1:5,000). The opposite of fine scale and similar to large scale.

commercial forestlands: Maine forestlands owned and managed in large blocks (i.e.,

often townships or larger), generally by corporations, for commercial forestry purposes

(e.g., to produce fiber and timber). Numerous other private forestry lands in Maine are

excluded from this definition because these lands are generally in small blocks (< 200 ha

[554 ac]) and assumed to be more susceptible to changes in land use than the larger

ownerships.

commission error: The error of incorrectly predicting the occurrence of a species or

community in an area when it does not occur. This type of error results from

overestimation and is commonly called “user’s error” by specialists in remote sensing.

community: An assemblage of populations of plants, animals, bacteria, and/or fungi that

occur in an environment, forming a distinctive living system with its own composition,

structure, environmental relations, development and function. GAP usually refers to

vegetation communities, excluding the animal component. It is defined as an assemblage

of plant species that interact at the same time and place, of defined species composition

and physiognomy.

cover type: A floristic and structural description of vegetation cover often used to

operationally define habitats (or habitat types). Note that wildlife habitats, the areas

where organisms live, are made up of abiotic factors in addition to vegetative cover and

other biotic factors (e.g., prey species for predators).

cross-walking: The process of matching equivalent land cover categories between two or

more classification systems.

digitization: Entering spatial data digitally into a Geographic Information System (i.e.,

putting map data into a form computers use).

distribution maps: Maps that depict the discontinuous, more specific distribution of a

species within its overall range (Krohn 1996).

ecology: The study of the relationships between organisms and their environment.

ecoregion: In general terms, a large area of regional extent with similar biota, climate,

and physical environment. Climate and vegetation are used as key indicators to delineate

each unit, which can be thought of as ecosystems at a regional level (same as biophysical

region).

ecosystem: In general terms, all of the organisms in a given place in interaction with their

abiotic environment. More specifically, an assemblage of species and their environment

combined to form a distinct unit; a functional system which includes complementary
118

relationships, as well as the transfer and circulation of energy and matter. Ecosystems

can occur at many different scales.

edge-matching: A method for adjusting the locations of connecting areas (often

polygons) to produce a common, smooth interface.

EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) under the United

States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A national monitoring and

research program designed to monitor and detect changes in ecological conditions in the

USA.

EMAP hexagons: A grid network designed by the US EPA EMAP (see EMAP). The

grid is made up of hexagons; those being used by Gap Analysis are approximately 635

km2 each.

endemic species: A species which is restricted to or peculiar to a locality or region.

fine filter strategy: An approach to conserving biodiversity focusing on small ecological

units, usually but not exclusively focusing on organismal rather than spatial concepts that

make up the lower levels in the biodiversity hierarchy (e.g., single species, genes).

fine scale: A relative scale of spatial analysis indicating the use of mapping units that

cover a small area with greater detail. The ratio of map length to true length is large (e.g.,

1:5,000 as opposed to 1:5,000,000). The opposite of coarse scale and similar to large

scale.

gap: A species or community under-represented in the existing natural area network. A

missing component in a strategy to conserve biodiversity.

gap analysis: The generalized technique of creating GIS data sets of various biological

factors, and using them to identify critical components and important areas they

represented in the current network of special management areas. This process may also

include socioeconomic factors.

GAP (Gap Analysis Program): The multi-state project administered by the Biological

Resources Division of the US Geological Service (USGS). GAP is responsible for

conducting, on a state-by-state basis, gap analyses throughout the United States.

gap location: A defined area (such as a specific polygon) identified through gap analysis

that contains elements of biodiversity that are important to biodiversity conservation.

GIS (Geographic Information System ): A system of geographically referenced,

spatially explicit data. The system is designed for collecting, storing, retrieving, and

analyzing spatial data in a digital (i.e., computer) format.
119

G P S ( g l o b a l p o s i t i o n i n g s y s t e m ) : A s y s t e m o f s a t e l l i t e s o r b i t i n g a b o v e t h e e a r t h , t h a t 

w h e n u s e d w i t h a n i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d t o r e c e i v e e l e c t r o n i c s i g n a l s f r o m t h e s e 

s a t e l l i t e s , a l l o w s a u s e r t o d e t e r m i n e l o c a t i o n s o n a n d n e a r t h e e a r t h ’ s s u r f a c e . 

g r o u n d - t r u t h : A c t u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s c o l l e c t e d a t s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s t o v e r i f y m o d e l 

p r e d i c t i o n s o r t o c o n f i r m i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d f r o m r e m o t e l y - s e n s e d d a t a s o u r c e s . 

h a b i t a t : T h e a r e a u s e d b y a n o r g a n i s m , d e f i n e d b y t h e s p e c i e s - s p e c i f i c a s s o c i a t i o n s o f 

t h e a n i m a l a n d i t s p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e l o c a l i t y , s i t e , a n d t y p e o f l o c a l 

e n v i r o n m e n t a r e o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a d o m i n a n t p l a n t f o r m o r p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 

( i . e . , c o v e r t y p e ) , e v e n t h o u g h h a b i t a t s c o n s i s t o f a b i o t i c ( i . e . , c l i m a t e ) a s w e l l a s b i o t i c 

f a c t o r s . 

h i e r a r c h y : I n g e n e r a l t e r m s , a s e q u e n c e o f s e t s c o m p o s e d o f s m a l l e r , m o r e d e t a i l e d o r 

m o r e s p e c i f i c s u b s e t s . I n b i o l o g i c a l s y s t e m s , t h e o r d e r i n g h a s f o l l o w e d a p a t t e r n f r o m 

l a r g e t o s m a l l ( e . g . , s p e c i e s , p o p u l a t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l s , g e n e s ) . H o w e v e r , e a c h l e v e l h a s 

n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e e n c o m p l e t e l y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e n e x t l e v e l ( e c o r e g i o n s , l a n d s c a p e s , 

e c o s y s t e m s , c o m m u n i t i e s , s p e c i e s ) . G A P f o c u s e s o n t h e l a n d s c a p e l e v e l , b u t m a y 

i n c l u d e c o m p o n e n t s f r o m o t h e r l e v e l s ( e . g . , s p e c i e s , c o m m u n i t i e s ) . 

L a n d s a t : T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ’ c i v i l i a n e a r t h - o b s e r v i n g s a t e l l i t e s y s t e m . L a n d s a t s a t e l l i t e s 

o r b i t t h e e a r t h i n r e g u l a r p a t h s . T h e i r s e n s o r s c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n i n s e v e r a l s p e c t r a l 

w a v e l e n g t h s . D a t a i s c u r r e n t l y r e c e i v e d o n l y f r o m L a n d s a t 5 . H o w e v e r , t h e i m a g e s 

r e c e i v e d f r o m L a n d s a t 1 t h r o u g h 5 c o l l e c t i v e l y p r o v i d e a 2 0 y e a r a r c h i v e o f 

o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e e a r t h . 

l a n d s c a p e : I n g e n e r a l t e r m s , i t i s a h e t e r o g e n e o u s l a n d a r e a c o m p o s e d o f a c l u s t e r o f 

i n t e r a c t i n g e c o s y s t e m s t h a t a r e r e p e a t e d i n s i m i l a r f o r m t h r o u g h o u t . L a n d s c a p e s v a r y i n 

s i z e , f r o m s e v e r a l h u n d r e d k m d o w n t o a f e w k m i n d i a m e t e r . D a v i s a n d S t o m s [ i n 

S c o t t e t a l . ( 1 9 9 6 ) ] p r o p o s e l a n d s c a p e a s a l e v e l i n G A P ’ s s p a t i a l a n a l y t i c a l h i e r a r c h y 

u s e d t o c o m p i l e d a t a o n b i o d i v e r s i t y l a n d s c a p e f e a t u r e s , w i t h a n a p p r o x i m a t e s i z e o f 1 - 

1 0 0 k m 2 , m a k i n g i t t h e s e c o n d s m a l l e s t l e v e l i n t h e i r f o u r - l e v e l h i e r a r c h y . 

l a n d t r u s t s : C o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t a r e n o n p r o f i t a n d o w n l a n d , o r l i m i t e d 

i n t e r e s t s i n l a n d ( i . e . , c o n s e r v a t i o n e a s e m e n t s ) , t o p r o t e c t l o n g - t e r m e c o l o g i c , 

r e c r e a t i o n , s c e n i c , h i s t o r i c , e d u c a t i o n , o r p r o d u c t i o n v a l u e s o f t h e l a n d ( M C H T a n d 

M L T N , 1 9 9 8 ) . 

l a r g e s c a l e m a p : A r e l a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f m a p s c a l e , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e “ l a r g e ” v a l u e o f 

t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r a t i o t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e r a t i o b e t w e e n d i s t a n c e o n t h e m a p a n d 

c o r r e s p o n d i n g d i s t a n c e o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t r e p r e s e n t s ( e . g . , 1 : 5 , 0 0 0 a s o p p o s e d t o 

1 : 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) . L a r g e s c a l e m a p s c o v e r a s m a l l a r e a w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l . I t i s s i m i l a r 

t o f i n e s c a l e a n d t h e o p p o s i t e o f s m a l l s c a l e . 

L O O R ( L i k e l i h o o d o f O c c u r r e n c e R a n k ) : A s p e c i e s - s p e c i f i c r a n k , e s s e n t i a l l y b a s e d 

o n i n c i d e n c e o f o c c u r r e n c e o v e r e x t e n s i v e s u r v e y a r e a s , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e r e l a t i v e 

d i f f i c u l t y i n o b s e r v i n g a s p e c i e s i n f i e l d s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n t h e s p e c i e s ’ r a n g e . 

T h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s c o n c e p t h a s b e e n c o n f i r m e d f o r b i r d s i n M a i n e ( B o o n e a n d 

K r o h n 1 9 9 9 ) . 
120

map scale: The proportion (ratio) that represents the spatial relationship between a map’s

dimensions and those of reality. Map scale is frequently expressed in terms of a

representative ratio (e.g., 1:24,000-scale where 1 unit on the map represents 24,000 units

on the ground).

meso-scale: A relative description of map scale, referring to an intermediate or middle

value between small and large scales. It is the representative value that describes the

ratio between distance on the map and corresponding distance on the ground that it

represents (e.g., 1:100,000 as opposed to small scale [1:5,000,000] or large scale

[1:5,000]). GAP maps are most frequently produced at this scale.

metadata: The source, lineage, content, structure and availability of data (i.e., data about

data).

native species: A species known to occur naturally in an area, rather than one introduced

at any time in the recent or historic past by humans.

omission error: The error of not predicting the occurrence of a species or community in

an area when it does occur there. This type of error results from overestimation and is

commonly called “producer’s error” by specialists in remote sensing.

pixel: The smallest unit, or picture element, whose characteristics may be uniquely

determined in a digital image. Images have a raster data structure composed of pixels.

planning unit: The spatial unit used to analyze patterns of specific elements of

biodiversity in order to identify priority areas. It covers areas of approximately 10-

10,000 km2, and is the second largest component of the Davis and Stoms (1996) spatial

analytical hierarchy.

polygon: An areal feature with an undefined number of sides identified on a map that

defines a thematically homogeneous area differing from adjacent polygons. This multisided feature is most often defined in GIS by a series of arcs comprising its boundary, but

it can also be derived from grids by aggregating cells. In vector systems they also have

attributes.

population: A group of potentially inter-breeding individuals of the same species located

in a particular place and time.

predicted distribution maps: Maps depicting expected locations of species based on

associations with land cover types and species specific habitat attributes.

producer accuracy: Diagonal elements in an error matrix divided by the column total,

where rows represent the reference data and columns represent the map classes. Offdiagonal elements are omission errors (map class underestimate reference class).
121

range maps: Maps that depict the continuous geographic distribution of a species (Krohn

1996).

raster: A data structure used for digital images and in GIS. Refers to a matrix structure

of regularly shaped (square) pixels or map cells. The position in the matrix or grid

provides a reference to ground coordinates. Each grid contains the value or attribute for

the cell.

registration, spatial: Matching different images to each other by finding points on the

images that can be matched to known points on the ground.

remote sensing: Deriving information about the earth’s surface from images acquired at

a distance, usually relying on measurement of electromagnetic radiation reflected or

emitted from the feature of interest.

resolution: The ability of a remote sensing system to record and display fine detail in a

distinguishable manner, or the smallest feature that can be distinguished or resolved on a

map or image, such as a TM pixel.

small scale map: A relative description of map scale, referring to the small value of

the representative fraction that describes the ratio between distance on the map and

corresponding distance on the ground that it represents (e.g., 1:5,000,000 as opposed to

1:5,000). Small scale maps cover a large area with relatively little detail. It is similar to

coarse scale and the opposite of large scale.

special management areas: Areas that are managed primarily for natural values,

including the long-term maintenance of populations of native species and functional

natural ecosystems.

species: In general terms, it refers to all organisms of the same kind. The biological

species concept used by GAP refers to a group of actually or potentially interbreeding

natural populations that are reproductively isolated from all other organisms.

species composition: The specific species present in a particular area (e.g., a list of the

species in a particular community).

species/habitat model: An explicit statement of the relations linking the occurrence of a

species within its range to mapped habitat information.

species richness: The total number of species in a given area, sometimes restricted to a

given taxonomic group (e.g., reptile richness).

supervised classification: A type of digital classification of imagery, whereby pixels of

unknown identity are classified using samples of known identity (i.e., pixels already

assigned to informational classes by ground-truthing or registration with known land

cover from aerial videography) as training data.
122

supervised clustering algorithm: A method of grouping remotely-sensed satellite data

into similar units (“clusters”) that is based on known statistical properties of specific land

cover images, and therefore allows substantial intervention (“supervision”) by the

analyst.

terrestrial vertebrate: For ME-GAP this means those native species of amphibians,

reptiles, birds, and mammals (i.e., excludes fishes and marine species) that regularly

breed (i.e., approximately 5 out of 10 years, 1984-1993) in Maine.

Thematic Mapper (TM): A sensor carried on-board the Landsat 4 and 5 satellites. TM

records information in seven spectral bands: three visible wavelengths, one near-infrared,

two mid-infrared, and one thermal infrared. Information is provided in pixels with a

nominal ground measurement of 28.5-m on a side. TM scenes for GAP are processed by

the USGS EROS Data Center into 30-m, UTM projection pixels in six wavelengths

(excluding the thermal band).

unsupervised classification: A type of digital classification of satellite imagery

involving the identification and mapping of natural groups, or classes, of spectral values

within an image based on uniformity of brightness in several spectral channels.

unsupervised clustering algorithm: A method of grouping remotely-sensed satellite

data into similar units (“clusters”) that requires little intervention (“supervision”) by the

analyst, with decisions based primarily on statistical criteria. The analyst must then

assign the clusters to information classes using ancillary data or expert knowledge.

user accuracy: Diagonal elements in an error matrix divided by the row total, where

rows represent the reference data and columns represent the map classes. Off-diagonal

elements are commission errors (map class overestimate reference class).

vector: A data structure used in GIS. Information is stored as a series of ordered x, y

geographic coordinates. Geographic features are represented by points, lines, and

polygons; each can have attributes. Lines and polygons are delineated by arcs connecting

geographic coordinates.
123

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ANP Acadia National Park (part of NPS, USDI)

BCD Biological Conservation Database (managed by TNC)

BRD Biological Resources Division (USGS) (formerly NBS)

BSP Baxter State Park

DEM Digital Elevation Model (created by USGS)

DLG Digital line graph (created by USGS)

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (managed by EPA)

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

GAP Gap Analysis Program

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

MBPL Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (part of MDOC)

MDOC Maine Department of Conservation

MDIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (manages WMAs)

ME-GAP Maine Gap Analysis Program

MMU Minimum mapping unit

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure (program with BRD)

NBS National Biological Service (now BRD in USGS)

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS; part of USDA)

NWI National Wetlands Inventory (administered by USFWS)

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (managed by USFWS)

OGIS Maine Office of GIS

PIN Penobscot Indian Nation

PIT Passamaquoddy Indian

SCS Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS)

SPO Maine State Planning Office

TM Thematic Mapper

TNC The Nature Conservancy

URL Universal Resource Locator (used to locate home pages on WWW)

USDA US Department of Agriculture

USDC US Department of Commerce

USDI US Department of the Interior

USFS US Forest Service (part of USDA)

USGS US Geological Survey (part of USDI)

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service (part of USDI; manages NWRs)

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

WMA Wildlife Management Area (managed by MIDFW)

WWW World Wide Web
A

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Descriptions of vegetation and land cover classes used in ME-GAP.

Appendix 2. Computer program used to convert the physiographic classification of the USFWS

National Wetlands Inventory to the structural habitats for ME-GAP.

Appendix 3. Distribution of vegetation and land cover classes (km2) by biophysical regions of

Maine, 1993.

Appendix 4. Experts who provided information regarding species distributions and habitat

relationships.

Appendix 5. Example computer program used to create a prediction distribution map for a

species (i.e., Common Snapping Turtle).

Appendix 6. Results of comparisons between predicted occurrences and known occurrences of

vertebrates.

Appendix 7. Results of ME-GAP vertebrate accuracy assessment reported by Likelihood of

Occurrence Ranks.

Appendix 8. Federal, Heritage, and State rankings of terrestrial vertebrate species, with areas

(km2) in land management Categories 1 and 2.

Appendix 9. Major land ownerships by biophysical regions of Maine, 1995.

Appendix 10. The quantity of vegetation and land cover types (km2 ) in Maine stratified by

major land ownerships and land management Categories.

Appendix 11. The quantity of habitat (km2) predicted to be available to each vertebrate species

(n = 270) in ME-GAP, stratified by major ownerships and land management Categories.

Appendix 12. List of example GAP applications (Maine examples under Statewide planning).
A1-1

Appendix 1. Descriptions of vegetation and land cover classes used in ME-GAP.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Agricultural lands are those land cover types where human intervention maintains an open landscape

dominated by grasses, row crops, blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) bushes. 

Abandoned Field: This type includes abandoned agriculture reverting to forestland through old field

succession, characterized by grasses, shrubs and trees invading along the field-forest ecotone. Spectral

signatures contain a mixture of grassland and shrub/tree signatures. This class includes the Dactylis

glomerata-Rumex acetosella herbaceous alliance (Sneddon and Anderson, 1994). 

Blueberry Field: This type is composed of agricultural fields dominated by the production of low-bush

blueberries . Multiple structural forms include: burned field, pruned field, early season with leaves, and

late season with leaves and fruit set (Yardborough, 1996). This type is most common in eastern Maine

and occurs primarily on acidic gravel soils. 

Grasslands: This type is composed of vegetation dominated by perennial graminoid plants (grasses

and grass-like plants, including sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.). This class includes

hayfields, pastures, lawns, and golf courses. Sparse residential lands will be included in this category if

the coverage of buildings is lower than the coverage of lawns/fields. This class includes: Dactylis

glomerata-Rumex acetosella herbaceous alliance; Myrica pensylvanica-Shizachyrium scoparium

sparse shrubland alliance; Chamaedaphne calyculata and Hudsonia (tomentosa, ericoides) dwarf

shrub alliances along the Maine coast and islands, as well as Andropogon geradii-Sorgastrum nutans

and Calamagrostis canadensis-Phalaris arundinacea herbaceous alliances (Sneddon and Anderson,

1994). 

Crops/Ground: This class includes areas dominated by vegetation planted by humans for food

production including plowed or bare ground. Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and other cool crops are

commonly grown in northeastern Maine.

DEVELOPED LANDS

Developed lands are those lands where human use is intensive and structures (roads, buildings, etc.)

dominate the landscape. The dominance of human structures varies from low (Sparse Residential,

Highways/Runways) to high (Urban/Industrial).

Sparse Residential: This type is dominated by single family homes where building and road coverage

is greater than lawn or tree coverage. Areas with scattered houses in a field matrix will be in the

Grasslands class and scattered houses within a forested matrix will be in one of the Forestlands

classes.
A1-2

Dense Residential: This type includes areas where building and road cover is greater than 75%. 

Areas included are towns, villages, and strip developments along roads.

Urban/Industrial: This type is defined by areas where building and road coverage is greater than 95%.

 This class includes industrial developments, mills, large towns and cities, and transportation, power, and

communications facilities. 

Highways/Runways: This type includes some of Maine's major highways and most airports with

paved runways.

FORESTLANDS

Forestlands are those lands dominated by forests with tree crown closure of 10% or more and capable

of producing trees suitable for harvesting (Anderson et al. 1976). This superclass includes areas that

have been recently harvested (clearcut, light partial, or heavy partial), are in various stages of

regeneration (early or late), as well as mature forests.

Clearcut: This type includes areas harvested after 1991 from forest with greater than 90% canopy

cover removal and expected to regenerate into forest. This class is structurally similar to

Crops/Ground with minimal biomass present, but the time series of satellite imagery indicated that the

areas were in forest in 1991 but not in 1993. 

Early Regeneration: Areas harvested before 1991 that have begun to regenerate to forest are

included in this type. Seedling to sapling sized trees are expected, possibly with some residual trees

present. Species present will vary based on the original site composition, harvesting techniques and site

disturbance, and the presence of advance regeneration at the time of harvesting. These sites will return

to mature forests.

Late Regeneration: This type includes areas harvested before 1991 that have greater than 50%

crown closure. Sapling to poletimber sized trees expected with a species composition that will vary

based on the same variables for Early Regeneration as well as any subsequent site treatments. These

sites will return to mature forests.

Light Partial Cut: This type is composed of forestland where less than 50% of the overstory canopy

has been removed through harvesting. Harvesting may have occurred before 1991. May include

improvement thinning, light shelterwood and light selection harvests.

Heavy Partial Cut: This type includes forestland where greater than 50% of the overstory canopy has

been removed through harvesting. Harvesting may have occurred before 1991. May include heavy

shelterwood and heavy selection harvests.

Deciduous Forest: This type is composed of associations in which deciduous trees (trees that shed

foliage simultaneously in response to an unfavorable season) generally contribute greater than 75% to
A1-3

the total dominant tree species. This class includes paper birch (Betula papyrifera), aspen (Populus

tremuloides), sugar maple (Acer saccharum)-beech (Fagus grandifolia)-yellow birch (Betula

alleghaniensis ) forest cover types. Canopy closure is greater than 75%. This class includes all forest

alliances dominated by deciduous tree species: Acer saccharum-Betula allegheniensis-Fagus

grandifolia (northern hardwoods, often associated with spruce-fir forests), Acer saccharum-Fraxinus

americana-Tilia americana (rich northern hardwoods, often on well-drained, high fertility soils);

Carya-Fraxinus americana-Quercus (dry, upper slope and ridgetop communities); Quercus

(Northeastern upland oak-dominated forests on acidic, nutrient poor soils); Populus tremuloides

(short-lived, post-disturbance forests on acidic, well-drained soils); Prunus pensylvanica (short-lived,

post-disturbance forest community, occurring in association with boreal conifers and northern

hardwoods); and Quercus rubra woodlands (at higher elevations on rocky and talus slopes) (Sneddon

and Anderson, 1994). 

Deciduous/coniferous Forest: Forests in this type are composed of mixed deciduous and coniferous

trees with deciduous trees the majority. Canopy closure is greater than 75%. This class potentially

contains the following forest alliances: Tsuga canadensis-Acer saccharum-Betula alleghaniensis

(hemlock-northern hardwoods, in cool, moist sites); Pinus rigida/Quercus ilicifolia woodlands (pine

barrens, occurring in southern Maine); Pinus strobus-Quercus (rubra, velutina) (oaks and white pine

codominant) (Sneddon and Anderson, 1994), in addition to those alliances listed under Deciduous

Forest when conifer species contribute more than 25% of the canopy coverage.

Coniferous/Deciduous Forest: Forests of this type are composed of mixed coniferous and deciduous

trees with coniferous trees the majority. Canopy closure is greater than 75%. This class includes all

alliances listed under Deciduous/coniferous Forest as well as Myrica pensulvanica-Prunus

maritima shrubland occurring along the Maine coast (Sneddon and Anderson, 1994).

Coniferous Forest: This type is composed of associations in which coniferous trees (trees that are

never without green foliage) generally contribute greater than 75% to the total dominant tree species. 

Includes red spruce (Picea rubens), black spruce (Picea mariana), balsam fir (Abies balsamea),

northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), white pine (Pinus strobus), and red pine (Pinus resinosa).

Canopy closure is greater than 75%. This class includes all forest alliances dominated by conifers

including: Picea rubens-Abies (balsamea, fraseri) ("spruce-fir" forests); Pinus strobus-Pinus

resinosa (on acidic, well-drained sandy soils); Picea mariana (upland closed-canopy black spruce);

Tsuga canadensis-Pinus strobus on well-drained, acidic soils; Pinus (banksiana, resinosa, rigida)

woodland (pine-dominated woodlands on acidic rock outcrops); Picea rubens woodland on talus or

rock outcrops at higher elevations; Thuja occidentalis woodland on calcareous bedrock outcrops; and

Myrica pensulvanica-Prunus maritima shrubland on the coast and coastal islands (Sneddon and

Anderson, 1994, Davis 1966).

WETLANDS

Wetlands are those transitional land cover types occurring on the landscape between open water and
A1-4

uplands. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines wetlands in terms of a landscape unit that

must have at least one of the three following characteristics: (1) supports predominantly hydrophytes; 

(2) substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soils; or (3) if the substrate is nonsoil, the substrate is

saturated or covered with water during at least part of the growing season (Cowardin et al., 1979).

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, in digital form, were used in this study to map

wetlands. For an excellent overview of wetlands in one region of Maine (i.e., Acadia National Park and

vicinity) based on the NWI, including descriptions of NWI types based on field reconnaissance, see

Calhoun et al. (undated).

Deciduous Forested: Wetlands where broad-leaved, deciduous trees are the predominant life form

are common throughout Maine and the northeast. On river floodplains, dominant vegetation includes

silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple (Acer rubrum), ashes (Fraxinus spp.), elms (Ulmus

spp.). In isolated depressions in the uplands, along stream and lakes, and in other non-floodplain setting

that are wet, red maple is dominant. Red maple swamps, the major type of plant community in this type,

become increasingly more common from northern to southern Maine (and from north to south

throughout the northeast; see Golet et al. 1993). In contrast, Peatlands increase in abundance on the

landscape from southern to northern Maine.

Coniferous Forested: This type tends to occur on low gradient landscapes with the dominant trees in

relatively pure stands. Northern white cedar swamps, stands of black spruce, larch (Larix laricina)

stands, and mixtures of black spruce and larch are common in Maine. Generally, black spruce and

larch stands are adjacent to Peatlands, whereas cedar swamps generally grade into stands of spruce

and balsam fir, an upland type included in Coniferous Forest above).

Dead-forest: This is a relatively short-lived type dominated by dead, standing trees [i.e., woody

vegetation greater than 6 m (20 ft) in height] resulting from a rise in water levels. High water levels

could be the result of human activity (i.e., damming), but currently in Maine the more common cause is

damming by beavers (Castor canadensis). Within less than a decade, assuming water levels stay high,

the dead woody material falls into the water and the area will becomes a different type of wetland (e.g.,

Deciduous Scrub-Shrub or Fresh Emergent).

Deciduous Scrub-Shrub: This type is dominated by such shrubs as Labrador tea (Ledum

groenlandicum), leatherleaf (Chamaephne calyculata), rhodora (Rhododendron canadense),

sweetgale (Myrica gale), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and alder (Alnus spp.).

Commonly occurs along low gradient streams and rivers, lake inlets and outlets, and usually associated

with other wetlands (e.g., Peatlands, Wet Meadows).

Coniferous Scrub-Shrub: As the above type, this type is dominated by woody vegetation less than 6

m (20 ft) in height, including true shrubs and trees stunted by extreme environmental conditions, and is

generally associated with riparian areas and other types of wetlands. The predominant vegetation is

generally stunted spruce and larch.

Dead Scrub-Shrub: Similar to Dead-forest Wetland above, but in this type, the dominant life-form is
A1-5

shrubs, such as flooded alders or willows. Generally this type is created by beavers occupying a

Scrub-Shrub Wetland and killing the woody vegetation via flooding.

Fresh Aquatic Bed:This type, sometimes known as "flowering lakes," include tidal and non-tidal

freshwaters that are shallow and slow to non-running. These watered basins are dominated during the

growing season by a variety of floating and submergent (under water) aquatic plants, although emergent

(above water) plants do occur. Pondweeds (Potomageton spp.), water lilies (Nuphar spp.),

bladderworts (Utricularis spp.) and duckweeds (Lemna spp.) are common species that form aquatic

beds in Maine.

Fresh Emergent: This type of shallow water wetland, which can occur in tidal and non-tidal situations,

is dominated by emergent aquatics. Common species include arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), bulrushes

(Scripus spp.), burreeds (Spagonium spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), and pickerelweed (Poutedaria

cordata). Generally, this type of wetland is slightly less deep than Fresh Aquatic Beds, although

Fresh Emergent marshes regularly have patches of mostly floating and submergent aquatic plants.

Peatland: This type is really a complex of vegetation types (e.g., Stockwell 

1994), dominated by mosses (Sphagnum spp.), ericaceous shrubs, and sedges (Cyperaceae). 

Conifers, especially black spruce and larch are generally scattered across the peatland, and often grade

into pure stands at the edges (defined as Coniferous Forested Wetland). Small ponds regularly

occur on peatlands, and Water and Scrub Shrub types are common along peatland borders. 

Compared to the continental USA, Maine has an unusually high variety of peatland types. For more

information see Davis and Anderson (1991) and Damman and French (1987).

Meadow Wet: This type is often linear in shape, occurring adjacent to slow moving waters between

the water and Scrub-Shrub wetlands or uplands. Grasses such as bluejoint (Calamagrotis

canadensis) and cottongrass (Eriophorous spp.) are common, as are many kinds of sedges (Carex

spp.). Scattered shrubs and stunted tress are often present, especially toward the upland edges.

Salt Aquatic Bed: This type occurs in marine and estuarine environments, over a wide range of

substrates. Common plant communities in this type, ranging from high to low salinity environments,

include kelps (Laminaria spp.), rockweeds (Ascophyllum spp.), eelgrass (Zostera marina), and

widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima).

Salt Emergent: This type occurs on flats that are flooded by tides. Regularly flooded areas are

dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartine alterniflora) whereas the less frequently flooded sites are

dominated by saltmarsh hay (S. patens). Teal (1986) synthesized studies on salt marsh ecology in New

England, focusing on the southern part of the region, whereas the works of Jacobson and Jacobson

(1989), Jacobson et al. (1989), and Kelley et al. (1988) are specific to Maine.

Mudflat: Some of the highest tides in the world occur along the Maine coast. For this and other

reasons (glacial history, winter icing, etc.), intertidal mudflats are common features of estuarine

environments in Maine. Although appearing unvegetated, these areas of silt and clay deposits support a

rich community of microalgae and many types of invertebrates. To the sides and upper edges of this
A1-6

type, Sand or Gravel Shore occur regularly, whereas on the deeper edges Salt Aquatic Beds, such

as eelgrass, commonly occur.

Sand Shore: Areas immediately adjacent to fresh, brackish, and salt watercourses and waterbodies

where sand-sized particles and small stones predominate. Areas along the coast, but above the

intertidal zone, are included. This type tends to be linear in shape.

Gravel Shore: Similar to Sand Shore above, but here unconsolidated cobbled, gravel, or stones

predominate.

Rock Shore: Similar to Sand Shore above, but in this type rock, including boulders and bedrock,

cover 75 % or more of the area. In coastal areas, rockweeds, a group of brown algae, are commonly

found in this type.

Shallow Water: Watered areas where the bottom could be seen in aerial photographs; generally less

than 2 m (6.6 ft) in depth.

Open Water: Watered (fresh and brackish only; marine excluded) areas that are unvegetated (i.e.,

none of the above wetland types). Operationally, Open Water was mapped by combining data from

the NWI and satellite imagery. Because these data sources miss watercourses and waterbodies

concealed by dense tree canopies, Shallow and Open Water were combined with a GIS databases on

hydrology when predicting the distribution of vertebrates occurring in, or adjacent to, water.

OTHER

Alpine Tundra: This type includes the zone just below the treeline (alpine) and just above the treeline

and below permanent snow (tundra), includes krummholz (a growth form assumed by trees species

close to the upper treeline or within the alpine zone). This class includes the following alliances: Picea

mariana/Kalmia-Ledum sparse woodland (apline and boreal woodlands, with stunted, open canopy

black spruce); Picea mariana-Abies balsamea shrubland (krummholz); Carex bigelowii-Juncus

trifidus (alpine meadows above treeline) (Sneddon and Anderson, 1994).

Exposed Rock/Talus: This type includes exposed bedrock, talus, and bare mountain tops. Also

included in this class are gravel pits. 

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover

classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964.

29pp.
A1-7

Calhoun, J. K., J. E. Cormier, R. B. Owen, Jr., A. F. O=Connell, Jr., C. T. Roman, and W. Tiner, Jr.

(undated) [1994]. The wetlands of Acadia National Park and vicinity. University of Maine, National

Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station

Miscellaneous Publication 721. University of Maine, Orono. 108pp.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979, Classification of wetlands and

deepwater habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31,

Washington, DC. 131pp.

Davis, R. B., and D. S. Anderson. 1991. The eccentric bogs of Maine: a rare wetland type in the

United States. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 146, University of Maine,

Orono. 151pp+.

Davis, R.B. 1966. Spruce-fir forests of the coast of Maine. Ecological Monographs 36:79-94.

Damman, A. W. H., and T. W. French. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs of the glaciated northeastern

United States: a community profile. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(7.16),

Washington, DC. 100pp.

Jacobson, H. A., G. L. Jacobson, Jr., and J. T. Kelley. 1887. Distribution and abundance of tidal

marshes along the coast of Maine. Estuaries 10:126-131.

Jacobson, H.A., and G. L. Jacobson, Jr. 1989. Variability of vegetation in tidal marshes of Maine,

U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Botany 67:230-238.

Golet, F. C., A. J. K. Calhoun, W. R. DeRagon, D. J. Lowry, and A. J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of red

maple swamps in the glaciated northeast: a community profile. US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Biological Report 12, Washington DC. 151pp.

Kelley, J. T., D. F. Belknap. G. L. Jacobson, Jr., and H. A. Jcobson. 1988. The morphology and

origin of salt marshes along the glaciated coastline of Maine, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research

4:649-665.

Sneddon, L. and Anderson, M. 1994. A classification and description of terrestrial community alliances

in The Nature Conservancy's Eastern Region: First approximation. An unpublished report prepared

for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Gap Analysis Program. 96pp.

Stockwell, S. S. 1994. Habitat selection and community organization of birds in eight peatlands of

Maine. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono. 115pp.

Teal, J. M. 1986. The ecology of regularly flooded salt marshes of New England: a community profile.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(7.4), Washington, DC. 61pp.
A1-8

Yarborough, D.E. 1996. Wild blueberry culture in Maine. Cooperative Extension Service, Fact Sheet

#220 (Bulletin # 2088), University of Maine, Orono. 4pp.
A2-1

Appendix 2. Computer program used to convert the physiographic classification of the USFWS

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) types from Cowardin et al. (1979) to the structural habitats used

in ME-GAP (see Appendix 1). The program, called reseler.aml, is in ARC/INFO format, which uses

>reselect= and >aselect= to build sets of database records to be labeled using >move=. Entering an

>aselect= by itself clears the selected set of records. Groups of attributes from the NWI coding system

were identified using a wildcard (e.g., PFO3*, where * is a wildcard, and may represent any

characters).

/* **** Coniferous Forested Wetland ****

aselect

reselect attribute lk 'PFO3*' or attribute lk 'PFO4*' or attribute lk 'PFO7*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2FO3*' or attribute lk 'E2FO4*' or attribute lk 'E2FO7*'

/* Add Tamarack as an conifer during the breeding season ...

aselect attribute lk 'PFO2*'

/* A few polygons are only identified as forested wetland ... placed here.

aselect attribute lk 'PFO/*' or attribute = 'PFOW'

/* ****

move 'SFW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Deciduous Forested Wetland ****

reselect attribute lk 'PFO1*' or attribute lk 'PFO6*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2FO1*' or attribute lk 'E2FO2*' or attribute lk 'E2FO6*'

/* ****

move 'HFW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Dead Forested Wetland ****

reselect attribute lk 'PFO5*' or attribute lk 'E2FO5*'

/* ****

move 'DFW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Coniferous Scrub-shrub Wetland ****

reselect attribute lk 'PSS3*' or attribute lk 'PSS4*' or attribute lk 'PSS7*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2SS3*' or attribute lk 'E2SS4*' or attribute lk 'E2SS7*'

/* A few polygons were only identified to shrub-wetlands. Placed here.

aselect attribute lk 'PSS/*'
A2-2

/* ****

move 'SSW' to gap_code

/* *******************************

/* **** Peatlands (with coniferous dominant) ****

/* Note the reselect from the selected set

reselect attribute lk '*a*'

/* ****

move 'PW' to gap_code

aselect

/*

/* Select just the wet meadow polygons from the scrub-shrub polygons

reselect attribute lk 'PSS3*' or attribute lk 'PSS4*' or attribute lk 'PSS7*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2SS3*' or attribute lk 'E2SS4*' or attribute lk 'E2SS7*'

aselect attribute lk 'PSS/*'

/* Now select the Semipermenantly flooded group

reselect attribute lk '*F' or attribute lk '*F/*' or attribute lk '*Fb' or ~

attribute lk '*Fb/*' or attribute lk '*Fh' or attribute lk '*Fh/*'

move 'MW' to gap_code

/* Peatlands still take precidence over wet meadows

reselect attribute lk '*a*'

move 'PW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Deciduous Scrub-shrub Wetland ****

reselect attribute lk 'PSS1*' or attribute lk 'PSS2*' or attribute lk 'PSS6*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2SS1*' or attribute lk 'E2SS2*' or attribute lk 'E2SS6*'

/* ****

move 'HSW' to gap_code

/* *******************************

/* **** Peatlands (with deciduous dominant) ****

/* Note the reselect from the selected set

reselect attribute lk '*a*'

/* ****

move 'PW' to gap_code

aselect

/* ********

/*

/* Select just the wet meadow polygons from the scrub-shrub polygons

reselect attribute lk 'PSS1*' or attribute lk 'PSS2*' or attribute lk 'PSS6*'
A2-3

aselect attribute lk 'E2SS1*' or attribute lk 'E2SS2*' or attribute lk 'E2SS6*'

/* Now select the Semipermenantly flooded group

reselect attribute lk '*F' or attribute lk '*F/*' or attribute lk '*Fb' or ~

attribute lk '*Fb/*' or attribute lk '*Fh' or attribute lk '*Fh/*'

move 'MW' to gap_code

/* Peatlands still take precidence over wet meadows

reselect attribute lk '*a*'

move 'PW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Dead Scrub-shrub Wetland ****

reselect attribute lk 'PSS5*' or attribute lk 'E2SS5*'

/* ****

move 'DSW' to gap_code

/* ***

/*

/* Select just the wet meadow polygons from the scrub-shrub polygons

reselect attribute lk 'PSS5*' or attribute lk 'E2SS5*'

/* Now select the Semipermenantly flooded group

reselect attribute lk '*F' or attribute lk '*F/*' or attribute lk '*Fb' or ~

attribute lk '*Fb/*' or attribute lk '*Fh' or attribute lk '*Fh/*'

move 'MW' to gap_code

/* Peatlands still take precidence over wet meadows

reselect attribute lk '*a*'

move 'PW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Peatlands (moss and lichen dominant) ****

reselect attribute lk 'PML1*' or attribute lk 'PML2*'

/* ****

move 'PW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Fresh Emergent Marsh ****

reselect attribute lk 'PEM*' or attribute lk 'L2EM*' or attribute lk 'R2EM*'

aselect attribute lk 'R3EM*' or attribute lk 'R5EM*' or attribute lk 'R1EM*'

move 'FEW' to gap_code

aselect
A2-4

/* ****

reselect attribute lk 'PEM1*'

reselect attribute lk '*F' or attribute lk '*F/*' or attribute lk '*Fb' or ~

attribute lk '*Fb/*' or attribute lk '*Fh' or attribute lk '*Fh/*'

move 'MW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Salt Emergent Marsh ****

reselect attribute lk 'E2EM*'

/* ****

move 'SEW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Fresh Aquatic Bed ****

reselect attribute lk 'PAB*' or attribute lk 'L2AB*' or attribute lk 'RAB*'

aselect attribute lk 'RAB*'

aselect attribute lk 'R1AB*'

/* ****

move 'FAB' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Salt Aquatic Bed ****

reselect attribute lk 'M2AB*' or attribute lk 'E2AB*'

aselect attribute lk 'M1AB*' or attribute lk 'E1AB*'

/* ****

move 'SAB' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Shallow Water ****

reselect attribute lk 'PRB*' or attribute lk 'PUB*' or attribute lk 'POW*'

aselect attribute lk 'L2RB*' or attribute lk 'L2UB*'

/* ****

move 'SW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************
A2-5

/* **** Open Water ****

reselect attribute lk 'R1OW*' or attribute lk 'R2OW*' or attribute lk 'R3OW*'

aselect attribute lk 'R5OW*' or attribute lk 'L1*' or attribute lk 'M1RB*'

aselect attribute lk 'M1US*' or attribute lk 'M1RF*' or attribute lk 'M1OW*'

aselect attribute lk 'L2OW*' or attribute lk 'L2RB*' or attribute lk 'L2UB*'

aselect attribute lk 'R4SB*' or attribute lk 'R1RB*' or attribute lk 'R2RB*'

aselect attribute lk 'R3RB*' or attribute lk 'R5RB*' or attribute lk 'R1UB*'

aselect attribute lk 'R2UB*' or attribute lk 'R3UB*' or attribute lk 'R5UB*'

aselect attribute lk 'E1UB*' or attribute lk 'M1UB*'

/* ****

move 'OW' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Mud Shores ****

reselect attribute lk 'L2US3*' or attribute lk 'PUS3*' or attribute lk 'E2US3*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2SB3*' or attribute lk 'M2US3*' or attribute lk 'R1US3*'

aselect attribute lk 'R2US3*' or attribute lk 'R3US3*' or attribute lk 'R5US4*'

aselect attribute lk 'R5US3*' or attribute lk 'L2US4*' or attribute lk 'PUS4*'

aselect attribute lk 'E2US4*' or attribute lk 'E2SB4*' or attribute lk 'M2US4*'

aselect attribute lk 'R1US4*' or attribute lk 'R2US4*' or attribute lk 'R3US4*'

/* ****

move 'MS' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Rocky shore ****

reselect attribute lk 'L2RS*' or attribute lk 'M2RS*' or attribute lk 'E2RS*'

aselect attribute lk 'R1RS*' or attribute lk 'R2RS*' or attribute lk 'R3RS*'

aselect attribute lk 'R5RS*' or attribute lk 'M1RS*'

/* Marine classification incomplete ... rock bottom and unconsolidated bottom exists

aselect attribute lk 'M2RB1N' or attribute lk 'M2UB2N'

/*

/* Two reef polygons placed in rocky shore

aselect attribute lk 'M2RF2*' or attribute lk 'E2RF2N'

/* ****

move 'RS' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Gravel Shore ****
A2-6

reselect attribute lk 'L2US1*' or attribute lk 'PUS1*' or attribute lk 'E2US1*'

aselect attribute lk 'M2US1*' or attribute lk 'R1US1*' or attribute lk 'R2US1*'

aselect attribute lk 'R3US1*' or attribute lk 'R5US1*'

/* Miscellaneous unidentified shorelines placed in cobble shore

aselect attribute lk 'E2USK*' or attribute lk 'E2USN' or attribute lk 'L2USA'

aselect attribute lk 'M2USKh' or attribute lk 'PUSAh'

aselect attribute lk 'R2USA*' or attribute lk 'R2USB*' or attribute lk 'R2USC*'

aselect attribute lk 'R3USA*' or attribute lk 'R3USB*' or attribute lk 'R3USC*'

aselect attribute lk 'L2USA*' or attribute lk 'L2USB*' or attribute lk 'L2USC*'

aselect attribute lk 'L2USD*' or attribute lk 'L2USE*' or attribute lk 'L2USG*'

/* More miscellaneous unidentified shorelines

aselect attribute lk 'PUSC*' or attribute lk 'R1US*' or attribute lk 'PUS/*'

aselect attribute = 'PUSW' or attribute = 'RSUSW' or attribute = 'PUSA' or attribute = 'L2USF'

aselect attribute = 'R5USC'

aselect attribute lk 'L2USF*' or attribute lk 'R3USE' or attribute lk 'R2USE'

/* ****

move 'GS' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Sandy Shore ****

reselect attribute lk 'L2US2*' or attribute lk 'PUS2*' or attribute lk 'E2US2*'

aselect attribute lk 'M2US2*' or attribute lk 'R1US2*' or attribute lk 'R2US2*'

aselect attribute lk 'R3US2*' or attribute lk 'R5US2*'

/* ****

move 'SS' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Vegetated Shore ****

/* Vegetated Shore was included for completeness only. It is a code used in NWI, but did not

/* occur in Maine. RBB June 9, 1998

reselect attribute lk 'L2US5*' or attribute lk 'PUS5*' or attribute lk 'R5US5*'

aselect attribute lk 'R1US5*' or attribute lk 'R2US5*' or attribute lk 'R3US5*'

/* ****

move 'VS' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Upland ****

reselect attribute lk 'U*'
A2-7

aselect attribute lk ''

/* ****

move 'U' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* **** Out ****

/* Out was confirmed to be portions of Canada that fell within the

/* 1:24,000 quads mapped, RBB June 9, 1998

reselect attribute lk 'OUT'

aselect attribute lk 'NP'

/* ****

move 'OUT' to gap_code

aselect

/* *******************************

/* End of program
A3-1

Appendix 3. Distribution of vegetation and land cover classes (km2) by biophysical regions in Maine,

1993. (See Figure 2 for locations of regions).

Vegetation and

Land Cover Types

St. John Uplands St John Valley

Interior Foothills

Western and

Interior

Mountains

Eastern

Lowlands

and Foothills

Coastal Plains

and

Foothills

% km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % km2

Agricultural Lands 0.8 96.5 8.2 1,632.1 2.3 446.4 4.9 683.7 17.3 3,310.0

Abandoned Field 0.0 1.0 0.1 16.6 0.1 14.3 0.8 108.8 0.3 60.5

Blueberry Field 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 124.6 0.0 9.0

Grasslands 0.3 36.0 5.0 993.0 2.1 408.4 2.6 361.1 15.3 2,920.8

Crops/Ground 0.5 59.5 3.1 622.5 0.1 23.7 0.6 89.3 1.7 319.7

Forestlands 89.7 11,243.8 72.8 14,503.7 85.6 16,306.2 71.8 10,072.7 64.7 12,356.5

Clearcut 1.9 242.0 1.2 240.8 1.6 300.6 1.9 260.3 1.2 228.6

Early Regeneration 14.0 1,760.3 6.9 1,369.3 6.7 1,278.0 5.0 695.0 1.4 267.1

Late Regeneration 5.0 628.5 2.6 517.4 3.6 683.7 4.4 610.5 2.5 485.5

Light Partial Cut 1.7 215.3 0.9 184.5 1.6 307.1 1.3 186.1 1.3 244.5

Heavy Partial Cut 2.7 332.4 1.2 244.1 3.0 566.2 1.2 169.0 1.2 224.3

Deciduous 17.9 2,246.0 12.0 2,388.1 25.9 4,932.8 6.3 877.9 12.4 2,373.8

Decid./conif. Forest 20.0 2,508.0 14.5 2,891.4 18.4 3,510.6 9.7 1,361.1 16.8 3,215.2

Conif./decid. Forest 16.9 2,116.4 22.4 4,469.8 16.6 3,171.2 30.6 4,285.7 20.8 3,977.3

Coniferous 9.5 1,194.9 11.0 2,198.5 8.2 1,556.1 11.6 1,627.1 7.0 1,340.1

Wetlands (Preliminary) 9.4 1,182.5 18.1 3,602.3 11.5 2,199.0 21.5 3,011.9 14.9 2,854.3

Deciduous Forested 0.2 21.4 0.7 135.4 0.5 104.0 0.7 101.0 2.0 374.4

Coniferous Forested 4.5 562.7 7.7 1,529.3 2.5 476.5 5.5 775.4 2.9 547.3

Dead-forest 0.0 2.4 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.6 0.1 7.8 0.0 8.0

Deciduous Scrub-shrub 1.1 134.5 2.0 402.2 1.2 223.5 2.2 312.0 1.6 311.8

Coniferous Scrub-shrub 0.1 11.5 0.2 48.9 0.1 28.1 0.2 32.0 0.2 35.8

Dead Scrub-shrub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Fresh Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5

Fresh Emergent 0.7 81.7 0.8 162.0 0.6 116.6 1.3 180.5 0.9 178.0

Peatland 0.3 43.1 0.7 137.1 0.2 34.8 1.2 173.8 0.4 84.0

Wet Meadow 0.1 9.5 0.2 36.3 0.1 25.7 0.4 56.5 0.2 42.0

Salt Aquatic Bed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 136.4 0.3 60.5

Salt Emergent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.3 0.3 59.9

Mudflat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 130.1 0.5 104.2

Sand Shore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 16.4 0.1 15.1

Gravel Shore 0.1 13.0 0.1 11.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.4

Rock Shore 0.0 0.8 0.1 27.0 0.0 5.1 0.2 22.5 0.0 8.0

Shallow Water 0.1 17.6 0.2 33.4 0.2 37.8 0.2 28.9 0.2 29.1

Open Water 2.3 284.2 5.4 1,072.2 6.0 1,133.8 7.2 1,013.7 5.2 994.1

Developed Lands 0.1 12.2 0.9 179.1 0.3 57.5 1.7 237.8 3.0 579.3

Sparse Residential 0.1 8.8 0.7 145.8 0.2 36.8 1.5 213.3 1.5 285.8

Dense Residential 0.0 3.4 0.2 32.8 0.1 20.3 0.2 23.1 1.4 272.7

Urban/Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.9

Highways/Runways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.0

Other 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 41.6 0.1 13.4 0.1 9.8

Alpine Tundra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exposed Rock/Talus 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 20.9 0.1 13.4 0.1 9.8

Totals 100.0 12,535.7 100.0 19,917.2 100.0 19,050.7 100.0 14,019.5 100.0 19,109.9
A4-1

Appendix 4. Experts who provided information regarding species distributions and habitat

relationships.

Name Affiliation Taxonomic group(s)

John Albright Atlantic Salmon Federation amphibians, reptiles,

mammals

Linda Alverson Seven Islands Corporation birds

Dave Capen University of Vermont birds

Jim Connolly MDIFWa mammals

Patrick Corr MDIFWa birds

Phillip deMaynadier University of Maine amphibians, reptiles

Richard DeGraaf USDA Forest Service amphibians, reptiles, birds,

mammals

Norm Famous Private consultant birds

Lyman Feero Bowater Corporation birds

Curt Griffin University of Massachusetts amphibians, reptiles, birds,

mammals

John Hagan Manomet Center for

 Conservation Sciences

birds

Dan Harrison University of Maine mammals

Thomas Hodgman MDIFW birds

Malcolm Hunter University of Maine amphibians, reptiles,

mammals

Allen Hutchinson Forest Society of Maine amphibians, reptiles,

mammals, birds

Thomas Kunz Boston University mammals

John Litvaitis University of New Hampshire mammals

Judy Markowski Maine Audubon Society amphibians, birds

Mark McCollough MDIFW amphibians, reptiles,

mammals, birds

Craig McLaughlin MDIFW mammals

Kim Morris MDIFW mammals

Anders Rhodin Chelonian Research Foundation reptiles

Beth Schwartz MDIFW amphibians, reptiles,
A4-2

mammals, birds

Mike Sullivan New Brunswick Fish and

 Wildlife Branch

amphibians, reptiles,

mammals, birds

Peter Vickery Massachusetts Audubon Society birds

Ken Williams USGS Biological Resources

 Division

amphibians, reptiles,

mammals, birds

Mariko Yamasaki USDA Forest Service amphibians, reptiles,

mammals, birds

a

 - Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
A5-1

Appendix 5. Example computer program used to create a prediction distribution map for a species (i.e., Common Snapping Turtle). This

AML uses algebraic raster modeling techniques to merge several data layers to generate the predicted distribution for the Common Snapping

Turtle. The distribution that is generated from the following model is not generalized along range boundaries, and so is not equal to the final

predicted distributions of ME-GAP, but a precursor. Ancillary programs called by the primary program are also shown. Finally, the AML that

creates an initial habitat value grid is shown (i.e., RECLSER.AML).

CHSEMOD.AML

 &sv spp = CHSE

 &sv name = 'Snapping turtle'

 &sv name = [unquote %name%]

 /* CHSE Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina

 /*

 /* This file models the habitat relations of the species in the state,

 /* marking habitats that are within the species' range as occupied (with

 /* a score from 1 to 4) or unoccupied (0). Habitat patches that include

 /* only some portion of the species' range, and are within the same

 /* hydrologic unit, are also shown occupied. Habitat patches outside

 /* the species' range are not scored.

 /*

 /* This model assumes as inputs:

 /*

 /* Arguments (now set, rather than passed):

 /* spp (Four letter species code)

 /* name (full species common name, for reporting progress)

 /*

 /* Files:

 /* r%spp% - r%spp% (e.g., rstoc) is a grid, at 30 m resolution

 /* which includes the range of the species, WITH the

 /* edge of the range inluding zones that overlap the

 /* boundary. STATEWIDE species will not have or need

 /* the r%spp% grid. The r%spp% grid is generated by

 /* the RANGER.AML, stored within the /unit4/gap/rngs

 /* workspace.

 /*

 /* %spp%bnd - From /unit4/gap/rngs/bnd, these files CONTAIN TICS

 /* ONLY, and were generated from the r%spp% files. 

 /* They will be used to restrict analyses to windows

 /* for non-statewide species, with the windows

 /* ensured to be wider than the range of the species,

 /* with its feathered edges.

 /*

 /* g%spp% - FROM /unit2/spp/me. These long-standing grids
A5-2

 /* (from 1996 and modified through time) depict

 /* species ranges at 200 m resolution. A grid will

 /* exist for each species, and the grids must be kept

 /* up-to-date (the sm%spp% [smooth line] coverages from

 /* /unit2/spp/me and the g%spp% grids should always

 /* agree).

 /*

 /* habmap - FROM /unit4/gap/hab. A habitat map with habitats numbered

 /* from 1 to n. Here, the habitat map is 30 m resolution, and n

 /* is 37.

 /*

 /* %spp%gap.lut - FROM /unit4/gap/tabs. Here "tabs" is tables. In tabs are

 /* all the look-up files for each species ("*gap.lut"). These are

 /* ASCII reclassification files appropriate for GRID. The files

 /* list each habitat type in the habitat map (sorted), and a

 /* corresponding habitat quality from the matrices. 

 /* The lookup tables use a coding system to include breeding, feeding

 /* and breed-feed (maximum) habitat scores. The breed-feed score

 /* is multiplied by 100, breed by 10, and feed by 1, then summed.

 /* From this, for example, a value of 434 means breed-feed of 4

 /* breed of 3, and feed of 4.

 /*

 /* %spp%.mat - FROM /unit4/gap/tabs. These tables are in INFO format, and

 /* contain the full 51 class matrices developed, with breeding,

 /* feeding, and breed-feed habitat preferences. These tables will

 /* not often be used in modeling, but I set-up a cursor for each

 /* species for simplicity.

 /*

 /* strmdis - Distance from streams and single-line rivers, in meters. This

 /* grid has been reclassed into distance classes. Look at the

 /* vat to view the classes. From /unit4/gap/hab.

 /*

 /* streamsg - A grid of the streams and single-line rivers.

 /* From /unit4/gap/hab

 /*

 /* waterdis - Distance from waterbodies and dual-line rivers, in meters. This

 /* grid has been reclassed into distance classes. Look at the

 /* vat to view the classes. From /unit4/gap/hab.

 /*

 /* wateralloc - Allocation table for water distance above ... that is, the

 /* type of water closest to each cell.

 /*

 /* wetlanddis - As above for waterdis - Distance to wetlands.

 /* wetlandalloc - As above for wateralloc - Allocation of wetlands.

 /* durbandis - As above for waterdis - Distance to high density residential and

 /* urban areas

 /* durbanalloc - As above for wateralloc - Allocation of urban areas.

 /*

 /* Other ancillary inputs will be documented as they are used.
A5-3

 /*

 /* Run module from ARC

 /*

 /* Programmer: Randall B. Boone

 /* Creation date: November 4, 1997

 /*

 /* Last modified: March 24, 1998, RBB

 /* Modified by a program, April 21 1998, to include preprocessed habitat data.

 /*

 /* Determine if the species is statewide

 /* The range grids have '5' within the species' range, '3' outside but in Maine

 /* There is always a 0 class, so a statewide species will have only two types.

 &describe /unit2/spp/me/g%spp%

 &if %grd$nclass% = 2 &then

 &sv Statewide = Yes

 &else

 &sv Statewide = No

 /* Crosswalk the habitats to the selection matrix of the animal

 grid

 display 0

 &if [exists habrec -grid] &then

 kill habrec all

 &if [exists habrec90 -grid] &then

 kill habrec90 all

 &if [exists habmod -grid] &then

 kill habmod all

 &if [exists habmod90 -grid] &then

 kill habmod90 all

 &if [exists /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp% -grid] &then

 kill /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp% all

 /* If a statewide species, then set a large window, otherwise a small one

 &if %Statewide% = Yes &then

 setwindow /unit1/me/meok

 &else

 setwindow ../rngs/bnd/%spp%bnd

 /* &type Reclassifying habitats for %name%

 /* *** The following was modified to allow processing on another machine.

 /* habrec = reclass(../hab/habmap, ../tabs/%spp%gap.lut)

 &run gethabitats %spp% [quote %name%]

 /*

 /* &type Aggregating the habitat to 90 meters.

 /* Aggregate to 90 meters, based upon the majority habitat.

 /* habrec90 = blockmajority(habrec, rectangle, 3, 3, data)

 setcell 90

/* Set-up a cursor (HAB) to access specific entries in the species' full-size habitat matrix.
A5-4

 cursor hab declare ../tabs/%spp%.mat ro

 cursor hab open

 /* *******************************************************************************************

 /* WATERBODIES AND WETLANDS (USING MATRIX HABITAT VALUES). DEEP AREAS OF LAKES NOT HIGHLIGHTED.

 /* WET_CODE EST=2, LAC=4, OUT=7, PAL=5, RIV=3, SEA=1, U=6

 /* Southern New England cites a study reporting a 16 km round trip to breeding sites! Many studies

 /* report long distances ... too long to include nesting habitat in this model and not over

 /* estimate species occurrence. Nesting habitat is assumed to be available.

 /* 500 m from shore is excluded as deep water unlikely to be occupied by snappers ... they must breath.

 &sv habget = 'SRW'

 &call gethab

 &sv running = %:hab.habscore%

 &sv habget = 'SSW'

 &call gethab

 &sv standing = %:hab.habscore%

 &sv habget = 'DSW'

 &call gethab

 &sv deep = %:hab.habscore%

 if (../hab/streamsg == 1) habmod90 = %running%

 else if (../hab/strmdis <= 75) habmod90 = habrec90

 else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/waterdis <= 75) and (../hab/waterdis > 0)) habmod90 = habrec90

 else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/wetlanddis <= 75)) habmod90 = habrec90

 else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/watershore <= 250) and (../hab/watershore > 0)) habmod90 = %standing%

 else if ((../hab/allnwig.wet_int in {3,4,5,6}) and (../hab/watershore <= 500) and (../hab/watershore > 250)) habmod90 = %deep%

 endif

 /* ********************************************************************************************

 /* Write the results to their final location

 /* If a statewide species, then there is no need to consider range

 &if %Statewide% = Yes &then

 /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp% = habmod90

 &else

 if (../rngs/r%spp% == 5) /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp% = habmod90

 /* End the modeling procedure

 quit

 /* Now compressing the images on the fly

 &run crusher %spp% [quote %name%]
A5-5

 &return

 /* ********************************************************************************************

 &routine gethab

 cursor hab first

 /* Loop assumes that the habitat requested is really there.

 &do &until %:hab.code% = %habget%

 cursor hab next

 &end

 /* Return to the body of the AML

 &return

GETHABITATS.AML, called by CHSEMOD.AML

 &args spp name

/* Gethabitats uncompresses and moves about habitat scores for the

/* species being processed. This module was added after using

/* another machine to pre-process the habitat map for each species.

/* In another AML (reclser), habitats were reclassified to scores

/* according to the matrices created, then generalized to 90 m cells,

/* coverted to imagine format, and compressed.

 /* I don't want to remove the original file and uncompress it, so ...

 &sv spp = [locase %spp%]

 &sys cp /unit3/gap/spp/scores/%spp%hab.img.Z .

 &sys cp /unit3/gap/spp/scores/%spp%hab.igw .

 &type Uncompressing the habitat for %name%

 &sys uncompress %spp%hab.img

 &type Converting the image to a grid

 &sys arc imagegrid %spp%hab.img habrec90

 &type Removing the image file for %name%

 &sys rm -f %spp%hab.img

 &sys rm -f %spp%hab.igw
A5-6

CRUSHER.AML, called by CHSEMOD.AML

&args spp name

/* Crusher compresses habitat maps

&sv spp = [locase %spp%]

&type Converting the grid to an image

gridimage /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp% none /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp%.img imagine

compress /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp%.img

kill /wild1/gap/spp/gap%spp% all

&type Done with compressing %name%

RECLSER.AML, which is run prior to CHSEMOD.AML, to prepare a habitat quality map for the species

 &args spp name

 /* RECLSER reclasses habitats according to a LOOK-UP-TABLE that

 /* stores habitat values. The program then generalizes the results

 /* to 90 meters, exports an image file, and crushes it for storage.

 /*

 /* Randy Boone April 16, 1998 (!)

 &sv spp = [unquote %spp%]

 &sv spp = [locase %spp%]

 &if [exists habrec -grid] &then

 kill habrec all

 &if [exists habrec90 -grid] &then

 kill habrec90 all

 &if [exists habsamp90 -grid] &then

 kill habsamp90 all

 rm -f %spp%hab.img.Z

 rm -f %spp%hab.igw

 grid

 display 0

 setcell 30
A5-7

 &type

 &type Reclassifying habitats for %name%

 habrec = reclass(./hab/habmap, ./tabs/%spp%gap.lut)

 &type Aggregating the habitat to 90 meters for %name%.

 /* Aggregate to 90 meters, based upon the majority habitat.

 habrec90 = blockmajority(habrec, rectangle, 3, 3, data)

 setcell 90

 &type Resampling grid to 90 meters for %name%.

 habsamp90 = resample(habrec90, 90)

 quit

 &type Exporting habitat grid for %name%.

 gridimage habsamp90 none %spp%hab.img imagine

 &type Compressing habitat grid for %name%.

 compress %spp%hab.img

 mv %spp%hab.img.Z ./scores/.

 mv %spp%hab.igw ./scores/.

 &type Done with %name%
A6-1

Appendix 6. Results of comparisons between predicted occurrences of individual species and known occurrences based on checklist and

research projects. Under each comparison location the results are listed as “M” for match, “C” for commission error, and “O” for omission

error. Comparisons were not made if the species was not predicted to occur and it does not occur, dashed lines indicate that data were not

available for the site. Range information has also been incorporated (0 = test site outside range, 1 = within range). LOORs is Likelihood of

Occurrence Ranks. (see Glossary of Terms for definition).

CHECKLIST SITES

Amphibians

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

AAAAA01060 Blue-spot. Salamander 4 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAA01090 Spotted Salamander 11 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAD03040 Dusky Salamander 2 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAD05010 N. Two-lin. Salamander 10 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAD06020 Spring Salamander 3 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAD08010 Four-toed Salamander 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAD12020 N. Redback Salamander 8 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAAAF01030 Eastern Newt 7 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABB01020 American Toad 14 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABC02130 Gray Treefrog 13 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABC05090 Spring Peeper 16 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABH01070 Bullfrog 12 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABH01090 Green Frog 15 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABH01160 Pickerel Frog 9 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABH01170 Northern Leopard Frog 5 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

AAABH01190 Mink Frog 6 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0

AAABH01200 Wood Frog 17 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1
A6-2

Reptiles

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ARAAD01010 Painted Turtle 13 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARAAB01010 Snapping Turtle 11 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARAAD02010 Spotted Turtle 15 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARAAD02020 Wood Turtle 5 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARAAD04010 Blanding's Turtle 16 O 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARAAD08010 Eastern Box Turtle 10 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARAAE02040 Common Musk Turtle 3 O 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB07010 Racer 14 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB10010 Ringneck Snake 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB19050 Milk Snake 8 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB22060 Northern Water Snake 7 C 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB34010 Brown Snake 9 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB34030 Redbelly Snake 4 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB36120 Eastern Ribbon Snake 2 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB36130 Common Garter Snake 12 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1

ARADB47010 Smooth Green Snake 6 M 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- M 1
A6-3

Mammals

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

AMAAA01010 Virginia Opossum 22 0 1 -- -- -- -- O 0

AMABA01010 Masked Shrew 51 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABA01150 Water Shrew 17 M 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABA01180 Smoky Shrew 18 M 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABA01210 Long-tailed Shrew 4 0 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABA01250 Pygmy Shrew 15 C 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABA03010 N. Short-tailed Shrew 52 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABB03010 Hairy-tailed Mole 23 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMABB05010 Star-nosed Mole 24 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMACC01010 Little Brown Myotis 21 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- 0

AMACC01130 E. Small-footed Myotis 8 0 1 -- -- -- -- O 0

AMACC01150 Northern Myotis 7 M 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMACC02010 Silver-haired Bat 3 C 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- C 1

AMACC03020 Eastern Pipistrelle 10 C 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMACC04010 Big Brown Bat 20 M 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMACC05010 Eastern Red Bat 9 C 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMACC05030 Hoary Bat 11 C 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAEB01050 New England Cottontail 6 0 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAEB03010 Snowshoe Hare 46 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- 0

AMAFB02230 Eastern Chipmunk 40 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFB03010 Woodchuck 45 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFB07010 Eastern Gray Squirrel 49 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFB08010 Red Squirrel 50 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- 0

AMAFB09010 S. Flying Squirrel 13 M 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFB09020 N. Flying Squirrel 33 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFE01010 American Beaver 44 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFF03040 Deer Mouse 56 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFF03070 White-footed Mouse 55 M 1 O 1 -- -- -- -- M 1
A6-4

Mammals cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

AMAFF09020 S. Red-backed Vole 53 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFF11010 Meadow Vole 54 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- O 0

AMAFF11090 Rock Vole 5 0 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFF11150 Woodland Vole 12 0 1 -- -- -- -- C 1

AMAFF15010 Muskrat 36 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFF17010 Southern Bog Lemming 16 C 1 C 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFF17020 Northern Bog Lemming 1 0 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFH01010 Meadow Jump. Mouse 29 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAFH02010 Woodland Jump. Mouse 26 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- O 0

AMAFJ01010 Common Porcupine 39 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJA01010 Coyote 30 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJA03010 Red Fox 37 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJA04010 Common Gray Fox 14 0 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJB01010 Black Bear 31 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- 0

AMAJE02010 Common Raccoon 47 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJF01010 American Marten 27 0 C 1 -- -- -- -- C 1

AMAJF01020 Fisher 28 C 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- C 1

AMAJF02010 Ermine 35 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- 0

AMAJF02030 Long-tailed Weasel 19 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- C 1

AMAJF02050 Mink 38 M 1 M 0 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJF06010 Striped Skunk 48 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJF08010 Northern River Otter 34 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMAJH03010 Lynx 2 0 1 -- -- -- -- O 0

AMAJH03020 Bobcat 25 O 0 M 0 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMALC02020 White-tailed Deer 43 M 1 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1

AMALC03010 Moose 42 O 0 M 1 -- -- -- -- M 1
A6-5

Birds

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABNBA01030 Common Loon 66 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABNCA02010 Pied-billed Grebe 20 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNGA01020 American Bittern 33 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNGA02010 Least Bittern 3 M 1 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABNGA04010 Great Blue Heron 40 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNGA06030 Snowy Egret 80 0 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNGA06040 Little Blue Heron 0 0 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNGA07010 Cattle Egret 0 0 1 O 0 0 M 1

ABNGA08010 Green Heron 42 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABNGA11010 Bl.- C. Night-Heron 53 C 1 C 1 0 0 0

ABNGE02010 Glossy Ibis 0 0 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNJB05030 Canada Goose 11 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNJB09010 Wood Duck 56 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNJB10010 Green-winged Teal 8 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNJB10040 American Black Duck 89 M 1 M 1 0 0 0

ABNJB10060 Mallard 29 M 1 M 1 0 0 0

ABNJB10130 Blue-winged Teal 47 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNJB10180 American Wigeon 0 0 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABNJB11040 Ring-necked Duck 95 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABNJB18010 Common Goldeneye 54 C 1 M 0 C 1 C 1 0

ABNJB20010 Hooded Merganser 60 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB21010 Common Merganser 73 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB21020 Red-breasted Merganser 55 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKA02010 Turkey Vulture 17 C 1 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNKC01010 Osprey 19 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNKC10010 Bald Eagle 12 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNKC11010 Northern Harrier 49 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 M 1
A6-6

Birds cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABNKC12020 Sharp-shinned Hawk 31 M 1 M 0 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKC12040 Cooper's Hawk 9 C 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKC12060 Northern Goshawk 28 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKC19030 Red-shouldered Hawk 43 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNKC19050 Broad-winged Hawk 104 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABNKC19110 Red-tailed Hawk 94 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNKC22010 Golden Eagle 0 0 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKD06020 American Kestrel 123 M 1 M 1 O 0 C 1 M 1

ABNKD06030 Merlin 0 C 1 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABNKD06070 Peregrine Falcon 0 M 1 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNLC09010 Spruce Grouse 59 M 1 M 1 0 1 0

ABNLC11010 Ruffed Grouse 99 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNLC14010 Wild Turkey 32 0 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNME01010 Yellow Rail 0 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNME05030 Virginia Rail 15 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNME08020 Sora 7 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABNME13010 Common Moorhen 22 0 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNME14020 American Coot 0 0 O 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNNB03090 Killdeer 116 M 1 M 0 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNF04020 Spotted Sandpiper 108 M 1 M 1 0 0 0

ABNNF06010 Upland Sandpiper 86 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNF18010 Common Snipe 71 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNNF19020 American Woodcock 88 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNNM03120 Herring Gull 51 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNM03210 Great Black-back. Gull 74 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 1
A6-7

Birds cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABNNM08070 Common Tern 39 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNM10020 Black Tern 117 0 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNPB04040 Mourning Dove 157 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNRB02010 Black-billed Cuckoo 36 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNRB02020 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 37 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNSB05010 Great Horned Owl 10 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNSB12020 Barred Owl 25 C 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNSB13010 Long-eared Owl 6 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNSB13040 Short-eared Owl 0 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNSB15020 Northern Saw-w. Owl 38 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNTA02020 Common Nighthawk 52 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABNTA07070 Whip-poor-will 72 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABNUA03010 Chimney Swift 129 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNUC45010 Ruby-thr. Hummingbird 76 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 0

ABNXD01020 Belted Kingfisher 103 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABNYF05010 Yellow-bell. Sapsucker 136 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNYF07030 Downy Woodpecker 115 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNYF07040 Hairy Woodpecker 113 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABNYF07080 Three-toed Woodpecker 16 0 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNYF07090 Black-backed W. 63 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABNYF10020 Northern Flicker 139 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNYF12020 Pileated Woodpecker 64 M 1 M 1 O 0 C 1 0

ABPAE32010 Olive-sided Flycatcher 65 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 0

ABPAE32060 Eastern Wood-pewee 146 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE33010 Yellow-bell. Flycatcher 77 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPAE33030 Alder Flycatcher 132 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAE33040 Willow Flycatcher 18 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE33070 Least Flycatcher 148 M 1 M 0 0 0 C 1
A6-8

Birds cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel Carson

NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPAE35020 Eastern Phoebe 159 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPAE43070 Great Crest. Flycatcher 133 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABPAE52060 Eastern Kingbird 131 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPAT02010 Horned Lark 35 C 1 C 1 M 0 C 1 M 1

ABPAU01010 Purple Martin 67 C 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABPAU03010 Tree Swallow 168 M 1 M 0 0 0 0

ABPAU07010 N. Rough-winged S. 70 C 1 C 1 0 C 1 C 1

ABPAU08010 Bank Swallow 119 M 1 M 1 0 0 0

ABPAU09010 Cliff Swallow 87 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAU09030 Barn Swallow 141 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPAV01010 Gray Jay 58 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPAV02020 Blue Jay 151 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAV10010 American Crow 142 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAV10110 Common Raven 84 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAW01010 Black-cap. Chickadee 164 M 1 M 1 1 M 1 1

ABPAW01060 Boreal Chickadee 69 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAW01110 Tufted Titmouse 68 C 1 0 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAZ01010 Red-breasted Nuthatch 120 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPAZ01020 White-breast. Nuthatch 109 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBA01010 Brown Creeper 85 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBG06130 Carolina Wren 0 0 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBG09010 House Wren 92 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBG09050 Winter Wren 154 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBG10010 Sedge Wren 0 M 1 M 1 0 M 1 C 1

ABPBG10020 Marsh Wren 5 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBJ05010 Golden-crown. Kinglet 82 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBJ05020 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 101 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1
A6-9

Birds cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPBJ08010 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 26 0 1 0 0 C 1

ABPBJ15010 Eastern Bluebird 83 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBJ18080 Veery 160 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABPBJ18100 Swainson's Thrush 143 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 0

ABPBJ18110 Hermit Thrush 138 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBJ18120 Bicknell's Thrush 2 0 1 0 C 1 1

ABPBJ19010 Wood Thrush 140 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBJ20170 American Robin 171 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBK01010 Gray Catbird 152 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBK03010 Northern Mockingbird 98 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBK06010 Brown Thrasher 90 M 1 C 1 0 C 1 M 1

ABPBM02050 American Pipit 0 0 1 M 1 C 1 0

ABPBN01020 Cedar Waxwing 156 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBW01160 Blue-headed Vireo 124 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBW01170 Yellow-throated Vireo 46 0 O 0 0 C 1 M 1

ABPBW01210 Warbling Vireo 57 M 1 M 0 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBW01230 Philadelphia Vireo 27 0 M 0 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBW01240 Red-eyed Vireo 169 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABPBX01020 Blue-winged Warbler 0 0 1 0 0 0

ABPBX01040 Tennessee Warbler 125 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX01060 Nashville Warbler 150 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 0

ABPBX02010 Northern Parula 137 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX03010 Yellow Warbler 153 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 0
A6-10

Birds cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPBX03020 Chestnut-sided Warbler 149 M 1 M 1 0 0 0

ABPBX03030 Magnolia Warbler 127 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03040 Cape May Warbler 93 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX03050 Black-throated Blue W. 106 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03060 Yellow-rump. Warbler 134 M 1 M 1 C 1 0 0

ABPBX03100 Black-throat. Green W. 121 M 1 M 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03120 Blackburnian Warbler 114 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPBX03170 Pine Warbler 50 C 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPBX03190 Prairie Warbler 48 0 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX03210 Palm Warbler 23 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX03220 Bay-breasted Warbler 96 M 1 M 0 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX03230 Blackpoll Warbler 81 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX05010 Black-and-white W. 135 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX06010 American Redstart 162 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX10010 Ovenbird 165 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBX10020 Northern Waterthrush 111 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBX10030 Louisiana Waterthrush 14 0 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBX11030 Mourning Warbler 102 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX12010 Common Yellowthroat 170 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX16020 Wilson's Warbler 13 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX16030 Canada Warbler 126 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPBX60010 Northern Cardinal 24 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX61030 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 130 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX64030 Indigo Bunting 100 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX74030 Eastern Towhee 128 M 1 C 0 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX94020 Chipping Sparrow 163 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX94050 Field Sparrow 61 M 1 M 0 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX45040 Scarlet Tanager 110 M 1 M 0 M 1 C 1 C 1
A6-11

Birds cont.

MDI,

Acadia NP

Moosehorn

NWR

Sunkhaze

Meadows NWR

Petit Manan

NWR

Rachel

Carson NWR

Element Code Common name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPBX95010 Vesper Sparrow 79 C 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX99010 Savannah Sparrow 75 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXA0020 Grasshopper Sparrow 1 0 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBXA0050 Saltmarsh Sharp-tail. S. 4 O 0 O 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBXA2010 Fox Sparrow 0 0 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBXA3010 Song Sparrow 167 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXA3020 Lincoln's Sparrow 62 M 1 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPBXA3030 Swamp Sparrow 97 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBXA4020 White-throated Sparrow 166 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBXA5020 Dark-eyed Junco 145 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBXA9010 Bobolink 107 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXB0010 Red-winged Blackbird 147 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXB2020 Eastern Meadowlark 44 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABPBXB5010 Rusty Blackbird 21 0 M 1 0 0 C 1

ABPBXB6070 Common Grackle 158 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXB7030 Brown-headed Cowbird 155 M 1 M 0 0 0 C 1

ABPBXB9190 Baltimore Oriole 112 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBY03010 Pine Grosbeak 45 0 O 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY04020 Purple Finch 118 M 1 M 1 C 1 0 0

ABPBY05010 Red Crossbill 34 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY05020 White-winged Crossbill 30 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY06030 Pine Siskin 41 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 0

ABPBY06110 American Goldfinch 144 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY09020 Evening Grosbeak 91 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1
A6-12

RESEARCH SITES

Amphibians

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Result

s

Range

AAAAA01060 Blue-spotted Salamander 4 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAA01090 Spotted Salamander 11 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAD03040 Dusky Salamander 2 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAD05010 N. Two-lined Salamander 10 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAD06020 Spring Salamander 3 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAD08010 Four-toed Salamander 1 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAD12020 Redback Salamander 8 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAAAF01030 Eastern Newt 7 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABB01020 American Toad 14 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABC02130 Gray Treefrog 13 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABC05090 Spring Peeper 16 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABH01070 Bullfrog 12 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABH01090 Green Frog 15 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABH01160 Pickerel Frog 9 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABH01170 Northern Leopard Frog 5 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABH01190 Mink Frog 6 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AAABH01200 Wood Frog 17 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
A6-13

Reptiles

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Result

s

Range

ARAAD01010 Painted Turtle 13 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARAAB01010 Snapping Turtle 11 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARAAD02010 Spotted Turtle 15 -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARAAD02020 Wood Turtle 5 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARAAD04010 Blanding's Turtle 16 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARAAD08010 Eastern Box Turtle 10 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARAAE02040 Common Musk Turtle 3 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB07010 Racer 14 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB10010 Ringneck Snake 1 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB19050 Milk Snake 8 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB22060 Northern Water Snake 7 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB34010 Brown Snake 9 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB34030 Redbelly Snake 4 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB36120 Eastern Ribbon Snake 2 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB36130 Common Garter Snake 12 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

ARADB47010 Smooth Green Snake 6 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
A6-14

Mammals

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

AMAAA01010 Virginia Opossum 22 -- -- O 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABA01010 Masked Shrew 51 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABA01150 Water Shrew 17 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABA01180 Smoky Shrew 18 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABA01210 Long-tailed Shrew 4 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABA01250 Pygmy Shrew 15 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABA03010 N. Short-tailed Shrew 52 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABB03010 Hairy-tailed Mole 23 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMABB05010 Star-nosed Mole 24 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC01010 Little Brown Myotis 21 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC01130 E. Small-footed Myotis 8 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC01150 Northern Myotis 7 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC02010 Silver-haired Bat 3 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC03020 Eastern Pipistrelle 10 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC04010 Big Brown Bat 20 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC05010 Eastern Red Bat 9 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMACC05030 Hoary Bat 11 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAEB01050 New England Cottontail 6 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAEB03010 Snowshoe Hare 46 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFB02230 Eastern Chipmunk 40 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFB03010 Woodchuck 45 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFB07010 Eastern Gray Squirrel 49 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
A6-15

Mammals cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

AMAFB08010 Red Squirrel 50 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFB09010 S. Flying Squirrel 13 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFB09020 N. Flying Squirrel 33 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFE01010 American Beaver 44 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF03040 Deer Mouse 56 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF03070 White-footed Mouse 55 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF09020 S. Red-backed Vole 53 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF11010 Meadow Vole 54 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF11090 Rock Vole 5 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF11150 Woodland Vole 12 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF15010 Muskrat 36 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF17010 Southern Bog Lemming 16 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFF17020 Northern Bog Lemming 1 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFH01010 Meadow Jump. Mouse 29 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFH02010 Woodland Jump. Mouse 26 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAFJ01010 Common Porcupine 39 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJA01010 Coyote 30 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJA03010 Red Fox 37 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJA04010 Common Gray Fox 14 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJB01010 Black Bear 31 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJE02010 Common Raccoon 47 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
A6-16

Mammals cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

AMAJF01010 American Marten 27 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJF01020 Fisher 28 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJF02010 Ermine 35 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJF02030 Long-tailed Weasel 19 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJF02050 Mink 38 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJF06010 Striped Skunk 48 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJF08010 Northern River Otter 34 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJH03010 Lynx 2 -- -- 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMAJH03020 Bobcat 25 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMALC02020 White-tailed Deer 43 -- -- M 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

AMALC03010 Moose 42 -- -- C 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
A6-17

Birds

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABNBA01030 Common Loon 66 C 1 C 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABNCA02010 Pied-billed Grebe 20 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNGA01020 American Bittern 33 C 1 C 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABNGA02010 Least Bittern 3 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABNGA04010 Great Blue Heron 40 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNGA06030 Snowy Egret 80 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNGA06040 Little Blue Heron 0 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNGA07010 Cattle Egret 0 0 0 0 0 0

ABNGA08010 Green Heron 42 0 1 0 0 0

ABNGA11010 Black-cr. Night-heron 53 0 0 0 0 0

ABNGE02010 Glossy Ibis 0 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB05030 Canada Goose 11 C 1 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABNJB09010 Wood Duck 56 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB10010 Green-winged Teal 8 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB10040 American Black Duck 89 0 0 0 0 0

ABNJB10060 Mallard 29 C 1 0 C 1 C 1 C 0

ABNJB10130 Blue-winged Teal 47 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABNJB10180 American Wigeon 0 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB11040 Ring-necked Duck 95 0 0 0 0 0

ABNJB18010 Common Goldeneye 54 C 1 0 C 1 0 C 1

ABNJB20010 Hooded Merganser 60 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB21010 Common Merganser 73 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNJB21020 Red-breasted Merganser 55 0 C 1 0 1 0

ABNKA02010 Turkey Vulture 17 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNKC01010 Osprey 19 C 1 C 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABNKC10010 Bald Eagle 12 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNKC11010 Northern Harrier 49 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKC12020 Sharp-shinned Hawk 31 C 1 1 M 1 C 1 C 1
A6-18

Birds cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABNKC12040 Cooper's Hawk 9 C 1 C 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABNKC12060 Northern Goshawk 28 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNKC19030 Red-shouldered Hawk 43 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNKC19050 Broad-winged Hawk 104 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABNKC19110 Red-tailed Hawk 94 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABNKC22010 Golden Eagle 0 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABNKD06020 American Kestrel 123 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABNKD06030 Merlin 0 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNKD06070 Peregrine Falcon 0 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNLC09010 Spruce Grouse 59 0 0 1 1 C 1

ABNLC11010 Ruffed Grouse 99 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNLC14010 Wild Turkey 32 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNME05030 Virginia Rail 15 M 1 O 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNME08020 Sora 7 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNME01010 Yellow Rail 0 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABNME13010 Common Moorhen 22 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 C 1

ABNME14020 American Coot 0 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNNB03090 Killdeer 116 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNF04020 Spotted Sandpiper 108 0 0 0 0 0

ABNNF06010 Upland Sandpiper 86 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNF18010 Common Snipe 71 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNF19020 American Woodcock 88 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNNM03120 Herring Gull 51 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABNNM03210 Great Black-back. Gull 74 0 1 0 1 0

ABNNM08070 Common Tern 39 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABNNM10020 Black Tern 117 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1
A6-19

Birds cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABNPB04040 Mourning Dove 157 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNRB02010 Black-billed Cuckoo 36 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABNRB02020 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 37 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNSB05010 Great Horned Owl 10 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABNSB12020 Barred Owl 25 C 1 1 1 1 C 1

ABNSB13010 Long-eared Owl 6 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNSB13040 Short-eared Owl 0 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNSB15020 Northern Saw-whet Owl 38 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNTA02020 Common Nighthawk 52 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABNTA07070 Whip-poor-will 72 C 1 0 C 1 C 1 M 1

ABNUA03010 Chimney Swift 129 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNUC45010 Ruby-thr. Hummingbird 76 M 1 O 0 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABNXD01020 Belted Kingfisher 103 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABNYF05010 Yellow-bell. Sapsucker 136 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNYF07030 Downy Woodpecker 115 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNYF07040 Hairy Woodpecker 113 C 1 0 C 1 0 M 1

ABNYF07080 Three-toed Woodpecker 16 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABNYF07090 Black-backed W. 63 0 M 1 0 C 1 C 1

ABNYF10020 Northern Flicker 139 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABNYF12020 Pileated Woodpecker 64 M 1 0 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE32010 Olive-sided Flycatcher 65 M 1 0 M 1 0 C 1

ABPAE32060 Eastern Wood-pewee 146 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE33010 Yellow-bell. Flycatcher 77 C 1 C 1 1 1 C 1

ABPAE33030 Alder Flycatcher 132 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE33040 Willow Flycatcher 18 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE33070 Least Flycatcher 148 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPAE35020 Eastern Phoebe 159 M 1 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1
A6-20

Birds cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPAE43070 Great Crest. Flycatcher 133 M 1 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAE52060 Eastern Kingbird 131 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAT02010 Horned Lark 35 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABPAU01010 Purple Martin 67 C 1 C 1 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAU03010 Tree Swallow 168 C 1 0 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAU07010 N. Rough-winged S. 70 C 1 0 C 1 0 C 1

ABPAU08010 Bank Swallow 119 0 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAU09010 Cliff Swallow 87 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAU09030 Barn Swallow 141 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPAV01010 Gray Jay 58 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPAV02020 Blue Jay 151 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAV10010 American Crow 142 C 1 C 1 1 1 C 1

ABPAV10110 Common Raven 84 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPAW01010 Black-cap. Chickadee 164 C 1 1 1 1 C 1

ABPAW01060 Boreal Chickadee 69 C 1 C 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABPAW01110 Tufted Titmouse 68 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPAZ01010 Red-breasted Nuthatch 120 0 0 0 0 0

ABPAZ01020 White-breast. Nuthatch 109 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBA01010 Brown Creeper 85 C 1 C 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBG06130 Carolina Wren 0 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPBG09010 House Wren 92 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBG09050 Winter Wren 154 C 1 C 1 1 1 C 1

ABPBG10010 Sedge Wren 0 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPBG10020 Marsh Wren 5 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBJ05010 Golden-crowned K. 82 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBJ05020 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 101 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBJ08010 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 26 0 C 1 0 0 0
A6-21

Birds cont.

LOORs

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPBJ15010 Eastern Bluebird 83 C 1 C 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABPBJ18080 Veery 160 M 1 0 C 1 0 M 1

ABPBJ18100 Swainson's Thrush 143 C 1 0 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBJ18110 Hermit Thrush 138 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBJ18120 Bicknell's Thrush 2 C 1 1 1 0 C 1

ABPBJ19010 Wood Thrush 140 C 1 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBJ20170 American Robin 171 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBK01010 Gray Catbird 152 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBK03010 Northern Mockingbird 98 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBK06010 Brown Thrasher 90 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPBM02050 American Pipit 0 M 1 0 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBN01020 Cedar Waxwing 156 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBW01160 Blue-headed Vireo 124 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBW01170 Yellow-throated Vireo 46 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBW01210 Warbling Vireo 57 0 C 1 0 M 1 C 1

ABPBW01230 Philadelphia Vireo 27 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBW01240 Red-eyed Vireo 169 M 1 0 C 1 0 M 1

ABPBX01020 Blue-winged Warbler 0 C 1 0 C 1 0 C 1

ABPBX01040 Tennessee Warbler 125 C 1 C 1 1 1 C 1

ABPBX01060 Nashville Warbler 150 M 1 0 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX02010 Northern Parula 137 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03010 Yellow Warbler 153 C 1 0 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX03020 Chestnut-sided Warbler 149 C 1 0 C 1 0 C 1

ABPBX03030 Magnolia Warbler 127 0 M 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBX03040 Cape May Warbler 93 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03050 Black-throated Blue W. 106 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03060 Yellow-rumped Warbler 134 M 1 0 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBX03100 Black-throated Green W 121 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX03120 Blackburnian Warbler 114 0 0 0 0 0
A6-22

Birds cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPBX03170 Pine Warbler 50 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBX03190 Prairie Warbler 48 C 1 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABPBX03210 Palm Warbler 23 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBX03220 Bay-breasted Warbler 96 C 1 C 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABPBX03230 Blackpoll Warbler 81 0 C 1 0 0 0

ABPBX05010 Black-and-white W. 135 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX06010 American Redstart 162 C 1 1 C 1 1 C 1

ABPBX10010 Ovenbird 165 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX10020 Northern Waterthrush 111 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX10030 Louisiana Waterthrush 14 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX11030 Mourning Warbler 102 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBX12010 Common Yellowthroat 170 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX16020 Wilson's Warbler 13 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX16030 Canada Warbler 126 0 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBX45040 Scarlet Tanager 110 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX60010 Northern Cardinal 24 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX61030 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 130 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX64030 Indigo Bunting 100 M 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX74030 Eastern Towhee 128 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBX94020 Chipping Sparrow 163 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX94050 Field Sparrow 61 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBX95010 Vesper Sparrow 79 M 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBX99010 Savannah Sparrow 75 C 1 C 1 1 0 C 1

ABPBXA0020 Grasshopper Sparrow 1 1 C 1 0 C 1 C 1

ABPBXA0050 Saltmarsh Sharp-tail. S. 4 0 C 1 0 C 1 C 1

ABPBXA2010 Fox Sparrow 0 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBXA3010 Song Sparrow 167 C 1 C 1 M 1 M 1 M 1
A6-23

Birds cont.

N Maine

Forest, area 1

Holt Research

Forest

Nesowadnehunk

Field, Baxter SP

White Mnts

NF

N Maine

Forest, area 2

Element Code Common Name LOORs Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range Results Range

ABPBXA3020 Lincoln's Sparrow 62 0 0 0 0 0

ABPBXA3030 Swamp Sparrow 97 0 1 0 C 1 C 1

ABPBXA4020 White-throated Sparrow 166 0 C 1 0 C 1 C 1

ABPBXA5020 Dark-eyed Junco 145 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXA9010 Bobolink 107 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXB0010 Red-winged Blackbird 147 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBXB2020 Eastern Meadowlark 44 M 1 O 0 M 1 C 1 M 1

ABPBXB5010 Rusty Blackbird 21 0 0 0 0 0

ABPBXB6070 Common Grackle 158 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBXB7030 Brown-headed Cowbird 155 0 C 1 0 C 1 0

ABPBXB9190 Baltimore Oriole 112 M 1 C 1 C 1 C 1 C 1

ABPBY03010 Pine Grosbeak 45 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY04020 Purple Finch 118 C 1 0 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY05010 Red crossbill 34 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY05020 White-winged Crossbill 30 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY06030 Pine Siskin 41 C 1 0 C 1 M 1 M 1

ABPBY06110 American Goldfinch 144 C 1 M 1 C 1 M 1 C 1

ABPBY09020 Evening Grosbeak 91 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 M 1
A7-1

Appendix 7. Results of ME-GAP accuracy assessment reported by Likelihood of Occurrence Ranks

(LOORS) reported by test sites with checklists and research data for each taxonomic group. (see

Glossary of Terms for definition).

Amphibians

Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park Low Grouped LOORsa High

1 2 3

Predicted species not present (commission) 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 5 5 5

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3

Predicted species not present (commission) 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 5 6 5

Reptiles

Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3

Predicted species not present (commission) 0 0 1

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 1 0 1

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 3 5 2

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3

Predicted species not present (commission) 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 5 6 5

Mammals

Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 6 0 1 0 0

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 1 0 1

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 2 8 8 9 8
A7-2

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 8 3 0 0 0

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 1 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 1

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 6 9 9 8

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 1 3 1 0 0

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 1 0 2 0 2

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 7 6 9 9 8

Birds

Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 3 7 8 5 0 0

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 1 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 2 23 22 26 31 30

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 3 6 6 6 2 1

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 1 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 1 1 2 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 1 24 24 26 29 29

Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 3 14 11 5 5 1

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 1 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 2 0 1 0 0
A7-3

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 14 18 25 25 28

Rachel Carson National Wldlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 8 19 18 16 9 4

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 10 11 13 20 25

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 4 17 20 13 9 1

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 13 10 18 22 2

SITES WITH RESEARCH DATA

Amphibians

Holt Research Forest low Grouped LOORs high

1 2 3

Predicted species not present (commission) 2 0 1

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 3 5 4

Reptiles

Holt Research Forest low Grouped LOORs high

1 2 3

Predicted species not present (commission) 1 2 1

Present species not predicted -- range limit (omission) 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 2 2 3
A7-4
A7-5

Mammals

Holt Research Forest Low Grouped LOORs High

1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 7 6 1 1 0

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- (omission) 0 0 0 0 1

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 1 2 8 8 8

Birds

North Maine Forestlands (area 2), Moosehead Lake Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 0 22 18 16 8 5

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 1 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 5 6 10 13 20 23

Low Grouped LOORs High

Holt Research Forest 0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 2 25 24 17 9 4

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 1 1 1 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 2 3 11 18 23

Nesowadnehunk Field, Baxter State Park Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 5 22 16 15 10 8

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted b/c of range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 3 9 11 15 17
A7-6

White Mountains National Forest Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 9 11 8 12 11 10

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 1 14 17 13 14 15

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 8 19 18 16 9 4

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 10 11 13 20 25

North Maine Forestlands area 1, Northern Townships

Low Grouped LOORs High

0 1 2 3 4 5

Predicted species not present (commission) 5 25 17 12 8 10

Predicted species not present -- range (commission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted -- range (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Present species not predicted (omission) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Predicted species present (correct) 0 2 10 15 19 17
A8-1

Appendix 8. Federal, Heritage, and State rankings of terrestrial vertebrate species, with areas

(km2) in land management Categories 1 and 2. Species are sorted in ascending order by their

percent of habitat in management Categories 1 and 2 lands.

Rankingsa Habitat

Common name

% ME 

in

range

NHP FWS IFW

Cat.

1& 2 Total

% in

1 & 2

AMPHIBIANS

Gray Treefrog 56 . . . 818 36,137 2.26

Northern Leopard Frog 100 S3 . . 1,013 38,764 2.61

Spring Salamander 33 S3 . . 67 2,324 2.86

Pickerel Frog 100 . . . 2,224 76,028 2.92

N. Redback Salamander 100 . . . 1,864 63,428 2.94

American Toad 100 . . . 2,174 72,303 3.01

Spring Peeper 100 . . . 2,121 70,572 3.01

Wood Frog 100 . . . 2,120 67,007 3.16

Spotted Salamander 100 . . . 2,069 64,179 3.22

Blue-spotted Salamander 100 . . . 2,020 61,273 3.30

Green Frog 100 . . . 2,053 61,516 3.34

Eastern Newt 100 . . . 885 25,334 3.49

Dusky Salamander 97 . . . 173 4,818 3.59

Mink Frog 72 . . . 277 7,585 3.65

N. Two-lined Salamander 100 . . . 870 23,682 3.67

Bullfrog 89 . . . 351 9,195 3.81

Four-toed Salamander 49 S3 . . 279 5,855 4.77

REPTILES

Common Musk Turtle 2 S3 . . 3 334 0.87

Smooth Green Snake 56 . . . 366 18,553 1.97

Racer 6 S2 . E 64 2,912 2.21

Brown Snake 6 S3 . . 90 4,042 2.21

Milk Snake 30 . . . 410 16,642 2.46

Eastern Ribbon Snake 29 S3 . . 80 3,138 2.54

Blanding's Turtle 3 S2 . E 37 1,441 2.58

Eastern Box Turtle 1 S1 . E 9 321 2.72
A8-2

Common Garter Snake 100 . . . 2,225 77,909 2.86

Northern Water Snake 23 . . . 47 1,594 2.93

Spotted Turtle 3 S3 . T 5 175 2.98

Snapping Turtle 66 . . . 286 9,114 3.13

Ringneck Snake 84 . . . 1,754 54,477 3.22

Redbelly Snake 86 . . . 2,031 62,687 3.24

Wood Turtle 100 . . . 1,316 39,652 3.32

Painted Turtle 70 . . . 326 9,575 3.41

BIRDS

American Wigeon 1 S1S2B,S3N . . < 1 181 0.22

Herring Gull 100 . . . 39 9,736 c0.41

Grasshopper Sparrow 9 S1B . E 11 1,233 0.89

Great Black-backed Gull 15 . . . 70 6,858 c1.02

Field Sparrow 49 S3S4B . . 73 6,547 1.11

Mourning Dove 100 . . . 219 18,319 1.19

Blue-winged Warbler 1 S1B . . 1 69 1.21

Purple Martin 54 S3B . . 127 9,376 1.36

Horned Lark 100 S3B,S3S4N . . 106 7,700 1.37

Brown Thrasher 74 . . . 169 12,360 1.37

Barn Swallow 100 . . . 208 14,635 1.42

Killdeer 100 S3,S5B . . 216 14,921 1.45

Vesper Sparrow 61 S3S4B . . 102 6,786 1.51

Eastern Meadowlark 78 S3S4B . . 122 7,653 1.59

Indigo Bunting 76 . . . 232 14,171 1.63

Northern Mockingbird 77 . . . 212 12,968 1.64

Savannah Sparrow 100 . . . 133 7,913 1.68

American Goldfinch 100 . . . 285 16,681 1.71

Brown-headed Cowbird 100 . . . 389 22,634 1.72

Carolina Wren 3 S1B?,S1N . . 13 749 1.73

Bobolink 100 . . . 127 6,915 1.83

House Wren 70 . . . 785 42,366 1.85

Wild Turkey 16 . . . 144 7,738 1.86

American Kestrel 100 S3N,S5B . . 314 16,631 1.89

Prairie Warbler 7 . . . 31 1,648 1.89
A8-3

Black Tern 2 S2B . E 1 58 1.95

Eastern Towhee 48 . . . 473 24,073 1.97

Bank Swallow 100 . . . 290 14,457 2.01

N. Rough-winged Swallow 64 S3S4B . . 227 11,260 b2.01

Eastern Bluebird 100 . . . 417 20,571 2.03

Common Nighthawk 100 . . . 442 21,595 2.05

Yellow Warbler 100 . . . 305 14,733 2.07

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 39 S3?B . . 244 11,698 2.09

Eastern Kingbird 100 . . . 545 25,928 2.10

American Woodcock 100 . . . 308 14,586 2.11

Lincoln's Sparrow 72 . . . 286 13,590 2.11

Mourning Warbler 92 . . . 362 16,750 2.16

Northern Harrier 100 . . . 238 10,902 2.18

Ruffed Grouse 100 . . . 999 44,570 2.24

Belted Kingfisher 100 S3N,S5B . . 346 15,372 b2.25

Whip-poor-will 83 S3B . . 522 22,900 2.28

Chimney Swift 100 . . . 491 20,896 2.35

Wilson's Warbler 79 S3S4B . . 370 15,594 2.37

Chestnut-sided Warbler 100 . . . 677 28,013 2.42

Yellow-throated Vireo 16 S3B . . 145 5,948 2.44

Warbling Vireo 100 . . . 940 38,303 2.45

Least Flycatcher 100 . . . 910 36,934 2.46

Red-tailed Hawk 100 S3N,S5B . . 1,738 69,978 2.48

American Redstart 100 . . . 1,600 63,203 2.53

Cattle Egret 3 S1B . . 33 1,304 2.54

Willow Flycatcher 31 S3?B . . 284 11,148 2.54

Red-eyed Vireo 100 . . . 1,561 60,890 2.56

Wood Thrush 100 . . . 1,555 60,331 2.58

Cliff Swallow 100 . . . 327 12,548 2.60

Eastern Wood-pewee 100 . . . 1,653 63,077 2.62

Canada Goose 100 . . . 416 15,822 2.63

Mallard 100 . . . 515 19,388 2.66

Downy Woodpecker 100 . . . 1,513 56,315 2.69

Sharp-shinned Hawk 100 S2S3N,S3S4B . . 1,882 68,861 2.73

Dark-eyed Junco 100 . . . 2,080 75,351 2.76

Philadelphia Vireo 70 . . . 1,022 37,079 2.76
A8-4

Gray Catbird 100 . . . 2,134 76,932 2.77

Black-and-white Warbler 100 . . . 1,355 48,761 2.78

American Robin 100 . . . 2,154 77,553 2.78

Spotted Sandpiper 100 . . . 239 8,532 2.80

Black-billed Cuckoo 100 . . . 1,952 69,661 2.80

American Crow 100 . . . 2,190 78,115 2.80

Baltimore Oriole 100 S2S3N,S5B . . 1,328 47,217 2.81

Nashville Warbler 100 . . . 2,132 75,924 2.81

Chipping Sparrow 100 S3NS5B . . 2,120 75,584 2.81

Veery 100 . . . 1,539 54,797 2.81

Cedar Waxwing 100 . . . 2,042 72,315 2.82

Black-throat. Blue Warbler 100 . . . 1,465 51,997 2.82

White-breasted Nuthatch 100 . . . 1,335 47,154 2.83

Song Sparrow 100 . . . 2,192 77,604 2.83

Common Yellowthroat 100 . . . 2,190 77,306 2.83

Hermit Thrush 100 . . . 1,720 60,498 2.84

Common Grackle 100 . . . 1,465 51,427 2.85

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 9 S2S3 . . 90 3,147 2.86

Common Raven 100 . . . 2,201 76,612 2.87

Eastern Phoebe 100 . . . 2,260 78,626 2.87

Tree Swallow 100 . . . 1,923 66,819 2.88

Common Loon 100 . . . 163 5,656 2.89

Tufted Titmouse 29 . . . 367 12,658 2.90

Blue-headed Vireo 100 . . . 1,937 66,605 2.91

Rose-breasted Grosbeak 100 . . . 2,063 70,901 2.91

Blue Jay 100 . . . 2,005 68,112 2.94

Northern Goshawk 100 S3?B,S3?N . . 1,728 58,656 2.95

Alder Flycatcher 100 . . . 399 13,546 2.95

White-throated Sparrow 100 . . . 2,105 71,378 2.95

Northern Flicker 100 . . . 2,036 68,945 2.95

Broad-winged Hawk 100 . . . 1,742 58,950 2.95

Great Horned Owl 100 . . . 2,060 69,330 2.97

Ruby-throat. Hummingbird 100 . . . 2,136 71,836 2.97

Black-capped Chickadee 100 . . . 2,040 68,755 2.97

Canada Warbler 100 . . . 2,089 70,272 2.97

Upland Sandpiper 49 S3B . T 123 4,127 2.97
A8-5

Three-toed Woodpecker 73 S3 . . 863 28,971 2.98

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 98 . . . 2,054 68,510 3.00

Great Crested Flycatcher 99 . . . 1,491 49,707 3.00

Long-eared Owl 100 S1S3B,SZN . . 2,055 68,158 3.01

Barred Owl 100 . . . 2,034 67,386 3.02

Magnolia Warbler 100 . . . 1,673 55,308 3.02

Blue-winged Teal 61 . . . 246 8,148 3.02

Merlin 38 S3B,SZN . . 613 20,302 3.02

Red-winged Blackbird 100 . . . 327 10,824 3.03

Purple Finch 100 . . . 1,666 55,031 3.03

Winter Wren 100 . . . 1,725 56,841 3.03

Olive-sided Flycatcher 100 . . . 1,597 52,204 3.06

Green-winged Teal 100 . . . 422 13,749 3.07

Pine Warbler 66 . . . 531 17,323 3.07

Osprey 100 . . . 1,183 38,581 b3.07

Turkey Vulture 26 . . . 435 13,969 3.12

Hairy Woodpecker 100 . . . 1,943 61,371 3.17

Spruce Grouse 85 . . . 1,110 35,030 3.17

Pileated Woodpecker 100 . . . 1,954 61,400 3.18

Tennessee Warbler 83 . . . 1,809 56,928 3.18

Northern Saw-whet Owl 100 . . . 2,005 62,916 3.19

Yellow-rumped Warbler 100 . . . 1,509 47,055 3.21

Cooper's Hawk 84 S3S4B,S3?N . . 1,729 53,852 3.21

Brown Creeper 100 . . . 1,951 60,651 3.22

Common Snipe 100 . . . 277 8,588 3.23

Blackburnian Warbler 100 . . . 1,815 56,236 3.23

Northern Cardinal 36 . . . 557 17,210 3.23

Scarlet Tanager 100 . . . 1,917 59,245 3.24

Black-throat. Green Warbler 100 . . . 1,899 58,541 3.24

Ovenbird 100 . . . 1,888 58,313 3.24

Common Tern 67 . . . 27 827 b3.25

Pied-billed Grebe 98 . . . 176 5,318 3.32

Red-breasted Nuthatch 100 . . . 1,476 44,249 3.34

American Black Duck 100 . . . 459 13,568 3.38

Northern Parula 95 . . . 1,857 54,539 3.40

Red-breasted Merganser 44 S3B,S5N . . 134 3,930 b3.41
A8-6

Red-shouldered Hawk 83 S3N,S4B . . 1,821 53,291 3.42

Pine Siskin 100 . . . 1,572 45,907 3.42

Black-backed Woodpecker 73 . . . 1,304 37,937 3.44

Evening Grosbeak 96 . . . 1,413 41,100 3.44

Common Merganser 90 . . . 930 26,762 3.47

Pine Grosbeak 49 S3?B,S3S5N . . 665 19,134 3.48

Swainson's Thrush 81 . . . 1,474 42,398 3.48

Louisiana Waterthrush 11 S2B . . 50 1,419 3.49

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 91 . . . 1,349 38,144 3.54

Bay-breasted Warbler 86 . . . 1,373 38,346 3.58

Wood Duck 100 . . . 1,053 29,330 3.59

Red Crossbill 100 S3S4B,S3S4N . . 1,074 29,839 3.60

Northern Waterthrush 100 . . . 1,236 34,258 3.61

Green Heron 45 S3S4B . . 487 13,445 3.63

Palm Warbler 78 . . . 206 5,651 3.64

White-winged Crossbill 97 S3S4B,S3S4N . . 1,058 28,672 3.69

Short-eared Owl 65 S1B,S1N . . 191 5,145 3.72

Fox Sparrow 32 S2B,S2N? . . 748 19,988 3.74

Golden-crowned Kinglet 95 . . . 1,073 28,661 3.74

Hooded Merganser 100 . . . 804 21,284 3.78

Great Blue Heron 100 . . . 821 21,556 3.81

Ring-necked Duck 100 . . . 347 9,020 3.84

Cape May Warbler 76 . . . 938 24,376 3.85

Common Goldeneye 94 . . . 759 19,623 3.87

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 90 . . . 1,162 29,398 3.95

Blackpoll Warbler 59 . . . 1,361 34,145 3.99

Boreal Chickadee 71 . . . 1,222 29,717 4.11

Gray Jay 67 . . . 866 20,978 4.13

Little Blue Heron 3 S1B . . 28 675 4.19

Rusty Blackbird 62 S3N,S3S4B . . 606 14,334 4.23

Common Moorhen 21 S2?B . . 20 443 4.49

Black-crowned Night-heron 20 S2B . . 253 5,189 4.88

Snowy Egret 4 S3B . . 46 936 4.90

American Bittern 100 . . . 187 3,693 5.06

Least Bittern 30 S2B . . 42 777 5.38

Swamp Sparrow 100 . . . 174 2,745 6.35
A8-7

Sora 100 . . . 130 2,013 6.47

Virginia Rail 89 . . . 130 1,864 6.98

Golden Eagle 3 S1B,S1N . E 33 461 7.16

Yellow Rail 100 SPB . . 69 949 7.25

Sedge Wren 43 S1B . E 44 567 7.74

Bald Eagle 100 . T T 86 1,073 b 8.03

Marsh Wren 41 . . . 91 1,111 8.17

Glossy Ibis 2 S2B . . 17 163 10.35

American Coot 16 S2?B . . 22 159 13.51

Nel.=s Sharp-tailed Sparrow 8 S3S4B . . 12 86 13.80

Peregrine Falcon 4 S1S2N,S2B E E 703 2,404 29.25

Bicknell's Thrush 25 S3B . . 61 208 29.36

Salt. Sharp-tailed Sparrow 2 S3B . . 17 40 41.27

American Pipit 0 S1B,S3N . E 10 10 100.00

MAMMALS

New England Cottontail 9 S2 . . 20 1,723 1.16

Red Fox 100 . . . 579 32,972 1.76

Snowshoe Hare 100 . . . 461 22,624 2.04

Lynx 31 S2 . . 340 16,598 2.05

Woodland Vole 4 S1 . . 28 1,336 2.12

Virginia Opossum 6 . . . 60 2,606 2.31

Eastern Chipmunk 100 . . . 1,478 62,888 2.35

Woodchuck 100 . . . 858 35,194 2.44

Eastern Gray Squirrel 78 . . . 933 36,131 2.58

White-footed Mouse 18 . . . 268 10,249 2.61

Common Gray Fox 17 . . . 264 9,726 2.72

Hairy-tailed Mole 100 . . . 1,896 69,685 2.72

Southern Bog Lemming 100 . . . 1,549 56,718 2.73

Bobcat 93 . . . 1,832 65,724 2.79

White-tailed Deer 100 . . . 2,137 76,607 2.79

Eastern Red Bat 100 SU . . 2,269 81,044 2.80

Striped Skunk 100 . . . 2,210 78,809 2.80

Southern Red-backed Vole 100 . . . 2,128 75,753 2.81

Northern Myotis 100 . . . 2,334 82,645 2.82
A8-8

Little Brown Myotis 100 ... 2,350 83,472 2.82

Masked Shrew 100 ... 2,216 78,692 2.82

Hoary Bat 100 SU.. 2,267 80,510 2.82

Meadow Vole 100 ... 2,214 78,065 2.84

Moose 91 ... 1,716 60,252 2.85

Long-tailed Weasel 100 ... 2,194 76,933 2.85

N. Short-tailed Shrew 100 ... 2,203 77,148 2.86

Meadow Jumping Mouse 100 ... 2,218 77,573 2.86

Big Brown Bat 100 ... 2,276 79,096 2.88

Common Raccoon 100 ... 1,933 67,034 2.88

Pygmy Shrew 99 ... 2,165 75,115 2.88

Ermine 100 ... 2,198 75,825 2.90

E. Small-footed Myotis 14 S1S2.. 147 5,005 2.93

Coyote 100 ... 2,217 74,411 2.98

Smoky Shrew 100 ... 2,158 72,120 2.99

Black Bear 90 ... 1,954 64,336 3.04

Common Porcupine 100 ... 2,122 69,651 3.05

Deer Mouse 86 ... 1,844 60,308 3.06

Star-nosed Mole 100 ... 1,174 37,443 3.14

Fisher 99 ... 1,953 61,687 3.17

American Beaver 100 ... 1,025 31,929 3.21

Northern Flying Squirrel 100 ... 1,807 56,104 3.22

Muskrat 100 ... 399 12,280 3.25

Long-tailed Shrew 38 ... 530 16,048 3.30

Red Squirrel 100 ... 1,423 42,594 3.34

American Marten 68 ... 1,297 38,841 3.34

Silver-haired Bat 100 SU.. 1,419 42,093 3.37

Woodland Jumping Mouse 98 ... 725 21,407 3.38

Eastern Pipistrelle 24 SU.. 426 12,412 3.43

Southern Flying Squirrel 14 SU.. 158 4,348 3.63

Mink 100 ... 1,061 28,939 3.67

Northern River Otter 100 ... 1,046 28,132 3.72

Water Shrew 100 ... 339 8,412 4.03

Rock Vole 28 S3.. 150 1,018 14.74

Northern Bog Lemming1 S1.T 125 156 79.77
A8-9

 a C Rankings representing rarity:

NHP: Natural Heritage Program state element ranks (animal ranks assigned by IFW, plant

ranks by MNHP, Doc.)

S1 = Critically imperiled in Maine, S2 = Imperiled in Maine, S3 = Rare in Maine,

SU = Possibly in peril in Maine, but status uncertain, SZN = regularly passes

through Maine, unable to map occurrences, S? = element is not yet ranked in the

state. Qualifiers : B = breeding in Maine, N = nonbreeding, PB = potential

breeder, ? = after a number or qualifier represents inexactness or unsureness. 

Other state element ranks representing secure species are not shown to highlight

species of concern.

FWS: US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened species listing.

 E = Endangered, T = Threatened

IFW: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Endangered and Threatened

species listing .

E = Endangered, T = Threatened

 b C The quantity of available habitat includes open ocean, and so may sum to more than shown

in tables summing only Maine=s landbase.

 c

 C The quantity of available habitat includes open ocean, to the limit of our study area (i.e., a 4

km buffer along the Atlantic coast). Additional habitat is available in offshore waters.
A9 - 1

Appendix 9. Major land ownerships by biophysical regions of Maine, 1995. See Figure 2 for locations of regions.

Land Ownerships St. John Uplands St. John Valley

Interior Foothills

Western and Interior

Mountains

 Eastern Lowlands

and Foothills

Coastal Plain and

Foothills

Total (ha) % Total (ha) % Total (ha) % Total (ha) % Total (ha) %

Federal 0 0.00 4,195 0.05 38,270 0.45 29,747 0.35 8,012 0.10

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 0 0.00 0 0.00 19,813 0.24 0 0.00 1,508 0.02

US Department of the Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 13,284 0.16 29,572 0.35 6,504 0.08

 Fish and Wildlife Service 0 0.00 0 0.00 399 0.00 10,910 0.13 6,147 0.07

 National Park Service 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18,662 0.22 356 0.00

US Department of Defense 0 0.00 4,195 0.05 5,172 0.06 175 0.00 0 0.00

 Air Force 0 0.00 4,195 0.05 0 0.00 175 0.00 0 0.00

 Navy 0 0.00 0 0.00 5,172 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00

State 36,226 0.43 82,192 0.97 158,026 1.87 43,610 0.52 35,371 0.40

Baxter State Park 0 0.00 22,376 0.27 61,000 0.72 0 0.00 83 0.00

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 1,668 0.02 7,422 0.09 1,233 0.01 8,905 0.11 16,301 0.19

The University of Maine, Orono 0 0.00 132 0.00 47 0.00 0 0.00 4,348 0.05

Maine Department of Conservation 34,558 0.41 52,262 0.62 95,746 1.14 34,706 0.41 13,927 0.15

 Bureau of Parks and Lands 34,558 0.41 52,262 0.62 95,746 1.14 34,706 0.41 13,699 0.15

 Public Reserve Lands 30,792 .36 45,422 .54 91,750 1.09 33,124 .39 9,312 .10

 Historic Sites, Parks 3,766 .05 6,840 .08 3,996 .05 1,582 .02 4,387 .05

 Maine Forest Service 0 0 1 tr 8 tr 0 0 228 tr

Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 712 .01

Native American 5,979 0.07 15,165 0.18 33,431 0.40 45,032 0.53 3,391 0.04

Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe 5,979 0.07 644 0.01 13,454 0.16 27,922 0.33 0 0.00

Penobscot Indian Nation 0 0.00 14,295 0.17 19,977 0.24 17,110 0.20 3,391 0.04

Other 0 0.00 226 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Municipal 5,307 0.06 274 0.00 1,145 0.01 498 0.01 3,024 0.04

Private 2,063 0.02 2,285 0.03 3,659 0.04 3,526 0.04 6,509 0.08

Forest Society of Maine 0 0.00 0 0.00 388 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Maine Audubon Society 0 0.00 0 0.00 59 0.00 0 0.00 308 0.00

Maine Coast Heritage Trust 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,288 0.03 1,072 0.01 191 0.00

National Audubon Society 0 0.00 0 0.00 107 0.00 37 0.00 201 0.00

The Nature Conservancy Organization 2,063 0.02 2,285 0.03 74 0.00 2,269 0.03 3,599 0.04

Others 0 0.00 0 0.00 743 0.01 148 0.00 2,210 0.03

Subtotal 49,576 0.59 104,111 1.24 234,531 2.79 122,413 1.46 56,307 0.65

Commercial Forestland 1,115,700 13.3 1,218,820 14.5 1,138,250 13.5 656,722 7.8 99,310 1.2

Other 81,162 1.0 598,737 7.1 455,937 5.4 503,180 6.0 1,637,034 19.4
A9 - 2

Open water 22,766 0.3 95,246 1.1 102,954 1.2 83,883 1.0 77,221 0.9
A10-1

Appendix 10. The quantity of habitat and land cover (km2) in Maine, stratified by major land ownerships and land management Categories. 

Total quantities of habitat by owner, management category, and overall are also shown. Combinations of landowner and management Category

that do not occur in Maine are shown with a dash (“-“), and water is not given a management Category.

The habitats and land cover database was based on 1991 and 1993 Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery interpreted using 1994 aerial

videography (see Land Cover Classification and Mapping). Wetlands were from the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands

Inventory. Conservation lands are described in detail in Land Stewardship. Note that a small number of lots ranked as non-conservation lands

(e.g., buildings owned by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife) were summed under “Other Private” holdings, regardless of

owner.

Major land owners identified in the table are:

FWS C US Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge)

NPS C US National Park Service (e.g., Acadia National Park)

Other FederalC Other Federal ownerships (e.g., US Department of Defense)

Native American C Native American lands (e.g., The Penobscot Indian Nation)

BSP C Baxter State Park Authority

IFW C Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (e.g., Wildlife Management Areas)

BPL C Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (including parks and historic sites)

Other State C Other Maine State lands (e.g., University of Maine holdings)

Private Conserv. C Private Conservation groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy)

Municipal C Municipal-owned lands (e.g., Portland area parks)

Comm. ForestC Commerical forestlands (e.g., Champion International Corporation lands)

Other Private C All other private holdings (e.g., Woodlots, private homes, private golf courses)

Water C Lakes, ponds, and ocean shores. For the habitat type AOpen Water,@ the total under water does 

 not include open ocean, and is noted with a >*=.
 A10-2

ABANDONED

 FIELD FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.5 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 0.8

 2 2.8 1.1 - 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 5.3

 3 - - 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 36.1 0.1 38.7

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 156.0 156.1

Total (km2) 3.3 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 2.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 36.1 156.1 0.1 201.1

BLUEBERRY

 FIELD FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.6 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 - - 1.9

 2 1.7 0.1 - 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 3.1

 3 - - 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 50.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.5 - - 0.0 - 77.9 78.4

Total (km2) 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.3 3.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 46.8 77.9 0.1 133.6

GRASSLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.3 3.0 0.5 - 3.8 0.8 0.2 0.5 3.8 0.0 - - 13.0

 2 3.2 1.6 - 0.0 0.1 11.0 5.0 0.3 1.0 1.2 - - 23.4

 3 - - 6.6 5.9 0.0 0.1 4.4 1.6 0.3 1.6 246.0 0.1 266.6

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 4,411.0 4,411.0

Total (km2) 3.5 4.6 7.1 6.0 3.9 11.9 9.7 2.4 5.1 3.1 246.0 4,411.0 5.0 4,718.9

CROPS/GROUND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.2 0.9 0.0 - 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 - - 3.5
 A10-3

 2 0.5 0.7 - 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.3 - - 5.1

 3 - - 4.6 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 70.6 0.0 82.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 1,017.8 1,017.9

Total (km2) 0.7 1.6 4.6 4.1 1.1 2.4 3.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 70.6 1,017.8 5.9 1,114.7

CLEARCUT FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.1 0.2 0.1 - 6.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.0 - - 7.7

 2 1.8 1.3 - 0.1 0.4 2.0 2.1 0.0 1.3 0.2 - - 9.2

 3 - - 0.7 11.1 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.7 0.0 0.7 869.0 0.0 891.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 361.5 361.6

Total (km2) 1.9 1.5 0.7 11.2 6.5 2.1 11.0 1.0 2.4 0.9 869.0 361.5 2.3 1,271.9

EARLY

 REGENERATION FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.7 0.2 0.1 - 28.9 0.3 0.7 0.2 3.2 0.0 - - 34.3

 2 4.0 2.1 - 0.2 2.6 5.1 9.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 - - 24.0

 3 - - 2.2 66.7 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.9 0.0 2.8 4,296.6 0.6 4,416.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.2 - - 0.0 - 890.3 890.5

Total (km2) 4.7 2.3 2.3 67.0 31.5 5.5 56.4 1.1 3.6 3.0 4,296.6 891.0 3.2 5,368.1

LATE

 REGENERATION FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.7 1.5 0.3 - 9.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 3.7 0.0 - - 16.7

 2 4.0 4.2 - 0.3 0.3 7.6 8.0 0.1 0.8 0.3 - - 25.5

 3 - - 2.6 48.5 0.0 0.1 45.7 1.0 0.0 2.5 1,916.3 0.2 2,016.7

 4 - - - - - - 0.6 - - 0.0 - 862.2 862.8

Total (km2) 4.7 5.7 2.8 48.7 9.2 7.7 54.8 2.0 4.5 2.8 1,916.3 862.4 3.1 2,924.9
 A10-4

LIGHT

 PARTIAL CUT FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.8 1.1 0.2 - 9.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.0 - - 13.1

 2 2.1 3.3 - 0.6 0.5 8.0 4.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 - - 19.5

 3 - - 2.7 10.6 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.8 0.0 1.0 678.7 0.2 721.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 381.8 381.9

Total (km2) 2.9 4.4 2.9 11.2 10.2 8.0 32.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 678.7 382.0 1.0 1,140.1

HEAVY

 PARTIAL CUT FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.4 0.1 0.2 - 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 2.4 0.0 - - 5.6

 2 1.4 2.0 - 0.2 0.1 3.4 3.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 - - 10.9

 3 - - 2.5 20.2 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 989.8 0.1 1,040.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.4 - - 0.0 - 477.4 477.8

Total (km2) 1.8 2.1 2.7 20.4 2.1 3.5 29.2 0.7 2.5 2.2 989.8 477.5 0.9 1,535.5

DECIDUOUS

 FOREST FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 1.2 4.1 22.5 - 144.2 0.3 2.2 0.3 12.8 0.4 - - 188.1

 2 4.1 27.7 - 0.8 7.8 50.1 75.2 0.0 1.3 2.2 - - 169.4

 3 - - 99.7 199.7 0.0 0.9 364.0 1.7 0.0 17.8 7,065.8 0.2 7,749.8

 4 - - - - - - 2.2 - - 0.0 - 4,702.1 4,704.3

Total (km2) 5.3 31.9 122.2 200.5 152.1 51.3 443.6 2.1 14.2 20.4 7,065.8 4,702.3 6.1 12,817.7

DECID./CONIFER.

 FOREST FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.3 23.0 7.3 - 140.0 2.6 5.3 0.4 20.7 0.2 - - 199.8

 2 5.0 22.9 - 5.7 15.3 43.4 68.9 0.0 2.2 2.9 - - 166.3
 A10-5

 3 - - 53.9 127.5 0.3 0.9 370.7 5.1 0.2 17.1 6,844.5 0.4 7,420.7

 4 - - - - - - 3.0 - - 0.0 - 5,683.6 5,686.6

Total (km2) 5.3 46.0 61.2 133.2 155.6 47.0 447.9 5.5 23.1 20.2 6,844.5 5,684.0 11.5 13,484.9

CONIFER./DECID.

 FOREST FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 17.8 30.2 4.7 - 151.3 3.0 4.2 1.7 27.6 0.1 - - 240.7

 2 35.3 36.4 - 6.1 40.7 64.9 89.7 0.1 3.2 4.6 - - 280.9

 3 - - 46.8 249.9 0.2 0.6 486.6 14.7 0.3 15.8 9,050.4 1.1 9,866.4

 4 - - - - - - 11.0 - - 0.0 - 7,587.4 7,598.4

Total (km2) 53.1 66.6 51.4 256.0 192.2 68.5 591.5 16.6 31.1 20.4 9,050.4 7,588.5 32.5 18,018.8

CONIFEROUS

 FOREST FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 9.9 47.3 6.9 - 131.9 0.5 2.6 0.4 35.1 0.0 - - 234.6

 2 15.4 60.7 - 0.6 38.5 27.5 80.7 0.0 4.9 2.8 - - 231.1

 3 - - 17.5 118.4 0.1 0.3 233.7 4.9 0.1 8.1 4,626.2 0.3 5,011.3

 4 - - - - - - 5.1 - - 0.0 - 2,412.0 2,417.1

Total (km2) 25.3 108.1 24.4 119.0 170.5 28.2 322.0 5.4 40.0 10.9 4,626.2 2,412.3 23.3 7,915.7

DECID. FORESTED 

 WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.1 0.9 0.0 - 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 - - 4.0

 2 1.7 1.3 - 1.0 0.7 13.4 3.4 0.0 1.1 0.5 - - 23.0

 3 - - 3.4 6.2 0.0 0.1 9.7 0.3 0.0 0.4 195.8 0.1 216.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 489.5 489.5

Total (km2) 1.9 2.2 3.4 7.2 2.3 13.7 13.2 0.4 2.0 0.9 195.8 489.6 3.6 736.1
 A10-6

CONIF. FORESTED

 WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 1.3 2.3 3.0 - 16.5 0.1 0.8 2.1 16.7 0.0 - - 42.9

 2 12.8 1.5 - 0.7 6.3 26.9 16.6 0.1 1.4 0.6 - - 66.9

 3 - - 9.2 69.1 0.1 0.5 97.8 1.6 0.0 8.3 2,545.3 0.3 2,732.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.3 - - 0.0 - 1,040.0 1,040.2

Total (km2) 14.1 3.9 12.2 69.8 22.9 27.5 115.4 3.7 18.2 9.0 2,545.3 1,040.3 9.4 3,891.0

DEAD-FORESTED 

 WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 0.2

 2 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 1.6

 3 - - 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 12.6

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 13.1 13.1

Total (km2) 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.8 13.1 0.4 28.0

DECID. SHRUB-

 SCRUB WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.9 1.7 0.0 - 10.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 4.8 0.0 - - 18.7

 2 10.8 2.2 - 0.2 2.4 22.5 14.5 0.1 1.1 0.2 - - 54.0

 3 - - 2.9 23.6 0.0 0.1 26.8 1.0 0.0 1.7 708.7 0.2 765.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.4 - - 0.0 - 515.9 516.3

Total (km2) 11.7 4.0 2.9 23.8 13.0 22.7 41.8 1.6 5.9 1.9 708.7 516.1 30.9 1,384.9

CONIFER. SHRUB-

 SCRUB WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.1 0.4 0.0 - 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 - - 3.5

 2 0.1 0.3 - 0.0 0.4 4.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 6.5

 3 - - 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 87.6 0.0 93.6
 A10-7

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 49.9 50.0

Total (km2) 0.3 0.7 0.2 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.8 0.1 0.7 0.0 87.6 49.9 3.4 156.9

DEAD SHRUB-

 SCRUB WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.6 0.6

Total (km2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.2

FRESH

 AQUATIC BED FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.1

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.8 0.8

Total (km2) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.4

FRESH EMERGENT FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.7 1.1 0.0 - 5.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.0 - - 8.8

 2 3.6 0.8 - 0.1 1.0 9.2 9.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 - - 24.2

 3 - - 1.2 14.5 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 357.8 0.0 389.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.5 - - 0.0 - 265.3 265.8

Total (km2) 4.3 1.9 1.2 14.6 6.2 9.2 24.9 0.3 2.0 0.3 357.8 265.3 30.5 718.8

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other
 A10-8

PEATLAND FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total

Category 1 0.3 0.7 0.0 - 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.8 6.5 0.0 - - 10.3

 2 6.1 0.5 - 0.0 0.9 4.2 11.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 - - 24.7

 3 - - 0.5 8.1 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 290.5 0.0 309.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.2 - - 0.0 - 122.3 122.5

Total (km2) 6.4 1.1 0.5 8.1 2.7 4.2 21.7 1.0 8.4 0.3 290.5 122.3 6.3 473.5

WET MEADOW FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.7 0.3 0.0 - 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 - - 3.0

 2 4.1 0.1 - 0.1 0.2 8.2 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 - - 13.7

 3 - - 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 71.3 0.0 80.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 57.9 58.0

Total (km2) 4.8 0.3 0.2 3.7 1.6 8.2 5.1 0.4 0.4 0.8 71.3 57.9 16.0 170.7

SALT

 AQUATIC BED FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.3 1.0 0.0 - 1.2 0.3 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 - - 6.7

 2 0.3 2.7 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - 4.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 181.4 181.5

Total (km2) 0.5 3.8 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.5 2.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 5.1 181.4 0.0 196.7

SALT EMERGENT 

 WETLAND FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 - - 2.2

 2 8.3 0.3 - 0.0 0.0 8.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 - - 18.7

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
 A10-9

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 58.0 58.0

Total (km2) 8.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 8.5 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 58.0 1.1 80.2

MUDFLAT FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 - - 0.7

 2 1.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 2.3

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 1.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 228.6 228.6

Total (km2) 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.2 228.6 3.1 236.1

SAND SHORE FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 0.2

 2 0.0 0.3 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.6

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 30.5 30.6

Total (km2) 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 30.5 0.0 31.5

GRAVEL SHORE FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.1

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 6.2

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 10.0 10.0

Total (km2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 10.0 15.6 37.3

ROCK SHORE FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total
 A10-10

Category 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 - 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 - - 2.9

 2 0.3 1.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 4.9

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 6.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 27.0 27.1

Total (km2) 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.9 27.0 22.7 63.6

SHALLOW WATER FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.1 0.2 0.0 - 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - 2.2

 2 0.8 0.3 - 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 2.9

 3 - - 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 57.5 0.0 62.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.2 - - 0.0 - 37.0 37.1

Total (km2) 0.9 0.5 0.3 1.7 1.6 0.7 3.9 0.0 0.5 0.1 57.5 37.0 41.6 146.3

OPEN WATER FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.5 1.0 0.0 - 5.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 - - 10.2

 2 1.9 2.3 - 2.2 1.0 11.4 18.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 - - 37.7

 3 - - 0.7 12.4 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.2 0.0 0.4 280.5 1.1 315.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 768.2 768.2

Total (km2) 2.3 3.4 0.7 14.6 6.2 11.5 38.6 0.3 3.2 0.7 280.5 769.3 3,541.5*4,672.8

SPARSE

 RESIDENTIAL FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.3 2.8 0.1 - 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 - - 3.9

 2 1.5 0.9 - 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 - - 4.5

 3 - - 0.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.2 119.5 0.1 125.6
 A10-11

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 555.6 555.7

Total (km2) 1.7 3.7 0.2 3.3 0.0 1.0 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 119.5 555.7 0.9 690.5

DENSE

 RESIDENTIAL FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 - - 0.2

 2 0.0 0.1 - 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 - - 0.9

 3 - - 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.2 9.9 0.0 15.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 335.0 335.0

Total (km2) 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.6 9.9 335.0 0.3 352.2

URBAN/

 INDUSTRIAL FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 14.7 14.7

Total (km2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.7 0.0 14.9

HIGHWAYS/

 RUNWAYS FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 7.7 7.7

Total (km2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.7 0.0 8.2

ALPINE TUNDRA FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total
 A10-12

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 18.4

 2 0.0 0.8 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.8

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0

Total (km2) 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 20.6

EXPOSED 

 ROCK/TALUS FWS NPS

Other

Federal

Native

American BSP IFW BPL

Other

State

Private

Conserv.

MunicipalComm.

Forest

Other

Private Water Total

Category 1 0.0 12.7 0.0 - 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 32.2

 2 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.7

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 10.8 10.8

Total (km2) 0.1 12.8 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 10.8 0.0 44.8
A11 - 1

Appendix 11. The quantity of habitat (km ) predicted to be available to each species (n = 270) in ME-GAP, stratified by major 2

ownerships and land management category. Total quantities of habitat available by owner, management category, and overall

are also shown. Combinations of land owner and management category that do not occur in Maine are shown with a dash (‘-’),

and water is not given a management status.

Estimates of habitat quantities were calculated by using habitat relations and geographic ranges to predict where vertebrates

were likely to occur. These estimates, created for cells 90 m by 90 m (1.12 million cells), were overlaid onto maps of major

land ownership and management status, and tallies made. When inspecting these tables to identify deficiencies in Maine’s

conservation network, the reader should note that species that are not statewide may not occur in all conversation ownerships. 

For example, Eastern Box Turtles occur only in southern and south-central Maine, so the habitat estimates for the more

northern Baxter State Park (BSP) are necessarily zero. Also note that a small number of lots ranked as non-conservation lands

(e.g., buildings owned by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife) were summed under “Other Private”

holdings, regardless of owner.

Major land owners identified in the table are:

FWS — US Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge)

NPS — US National Park Service (e.g., Acadia National Park)

Other Federal — Other Federal ownerships (e.g., US Department of Defense)

Native American — Native American lands (e.g., The Penobscot Indian Nation)

BSP — Baxter State Park Authority

IFW — Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (e.g., Wildlife Management Areas)

BPL — Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (including parks and historic sites)

Other State — Other Maine State lands (e.g., University of Maine holdings)

Private Conserv. — Private Conservation groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy)

Municipal — Municipal-owned lands (e.g., Portland area parks)

Comm. Forest — Commerical forestlands (e.g., Champion International lands)

Other Private — All other private holdings (e.g., Woodlots, private homes, private golf courses)

Water — Lakes, ponds, and ocean. A ‘*’ denotes the species has some portion of its habitat in

open ocean, and ‘**’ denotes the species may use ocean beyond the extent we had tallied.
A11 - 2
A11 - 3

BLUE-SPOTTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 34.5 114.0 44.7 - 613.9 6.7 15.4 7.2 125.2 0.6 - - 962.0

 2 104.3 157.9 - 14.0 114.3 278.0 358.2 0.3 17.2 13.8 - - 1,058.1

 3 - - 236.9 828.5 0.6 3.4 1,639.4 30.5 0.5 71.8 32,370.7 3.1 35,185.3

 4 - - - - - - 23.3 - - 0.0 - 23,648.1 23,671.4

Total (km ) 138.8 271.9 281.6 842.5 728.8 288.1 2,036.3 37.9 142.9 86.2 32,370.7 23,651.2 396.3 61,273.2 2

SPOTTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.1 116.0 44.9 - 623.0 7.0 16.5 8.0 131.3 0.7 - - 982.4

 2 108.6 163.8 - 14.3 114.5 286.3 366.4 0.3 18.4 14.2 - - 1,086.9

 3 - - 239.2 874.0 0.7 3.4 1,682.2 31.4 0.5 74.2 34,264.7 3.3 37,173.5

 4 - - - - - - 23.9 - - 0.0 - 24,504.3 24,528.1

Total (km ) 143.7 279.7 284.1 888.3 738.2 296.7 2,089.0 39.7 150.2 89.1 34,264.7 24,507.5 408.6 64,179.4 2

EASTERN NEWT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 14.1 38.9 12.0 - 214.6 3.1 3.0 7.1 59.7 0.1 - - 352.6

 2 70.5 38.0 - 10.5 47.1 174.4 175.6 0.3 9.6 5.9 - - 531.9

 3 - - 68.7 384.7 0.0 2.1 588.6 14.0 0.1 30.1 13,418.6 2.7 14,509.4

 4 - - - - - - 5.5 - - 0.0 - 9,469.1 9,474.6

Total (km ) 84.6 76.9 80.7 395.3 261.7 179.6 772.6 21.4 69.3 36.1 13,418.6 9,471.8 465.3 25,333.9 2

DUSKY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 1.4 8.8 1.2 - 54.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 15.3 0.0 - - 84.1

 2 16.2 5.2 - 0.8 5.3 40.6 18.7 0.0 1.5 0.5 - - 88.8
A11 - 4

 3 - - 13.4 59.5 0.0 0.1 91.9 2.4 0.0 8.3 2,512.3 0.3 2,688.3

 4 - - - - - - 2.0 - - 0.0 - 1,912.3 1,914.3

Total (km ) 17.5 14.0 14.6 60.3 59.5 41.6 113.6 3.6 16.8 8.8 2,512.3 1,912.6 42.3 4,817.7 2

N. TWO-LINED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 13.7 38.5 11.9 - 211.6 3.1 2.9 6.0 58.4 0.1 - - 346.1

 2 70.3 37.2 - 9.9 47.8 171.9 171.6 0.3 8.9 5.5 - - 523.4

 3 - - 67.7 363.9 0.0 2.1 566.3 13.3 0.1 28.4 12,547.6 2.4 13,591.8

 4 - - - - - - 5.2 - - 0.0 - 8,886.0 8,891.3

Total (km ) 84.0 75.7 79.6 373.7 259.4 177.1 746.1 19.6 67.4 34.0 12,547.6 8,888.4 329.0 23,681.6 2

SPRING Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 3.1 - 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 - - 10.6

 2 4.4 6.4 - 0.2 0.0 35.7 7.6 0.0 1.1 0.5 - - 55.9

 3 - - 16.2 22.8 0.0 0.6 46.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 720.1 0.1 807.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,392.1 1,392.1

Total (km ) 4.4 6.4 19.4 23.0 0.0 37.3 53.8 0.6 7.4 1.2 720.1 1,392.2 58.6 2,324.3 2

FOUR-TOED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.2 25.6 0.0 - 65.5 2.1 0.6 5.9 23.7 0.0 - - 123.7

 2 34.0 15.9 - 4.4 16.0 58.1 19.3 0.2 5.5 2.0 - - 155.4

 3 - - 9.5 51.2 0.4 0.9 78.5 8.0 0.2 6.1 1,674.4 0.9 1,830.0

 4 - - - - - - 1.1 - - 0.0 - 3,700.5 3,701.6

Total (km ) 34.2 41.5 9.6 55.6 81.8 61.1 99.6 14.1 29.4 8.0 1,674.4 3,701.3 44.3 5,855.0 2
A11 - 5

REDBACK Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SALAMANDER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.1 108.1 42.2 - 613.8 6.6 15.4 5.4 108.6 0.6 - - 932.8

 2 80.1 159.5 - 12.6 106.6 209.7 334.0 0.2 14.7 13.4 - - 930.8

 3 - - 225.8 835.1 0.5 2.8 1,584.4 28.9 0.5 66.9 35,351.4 3.0 38,099.4

 4 - - - - - - 22.7 - - 0.0 - 23,135.9 23,158.7

Total (km ) 112.2 267.5 268.1 847.6 720.9 219.1 1,956.6 34.6 123.7 80.9 35,351.4 23,139.0 306.5 63,428.1 2

AMERICAN TOAD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.5 120.9 45.4 - 651.2 8.1 16.7 9.7 139.4 0.7 - - 1,028.5

 2 116.3 169.8 - 14.8 114.5 306.2 386.0 0.8 20.3 16.2 - - 1,144.9

 3 - - 254.4 908.0 0.7 3.6 1,719.8 33.3 0.9 78.3 35,759.5 3.5 38,762.0

 4 - - - - - - 25.0 - - 0.0 - 30,848.0 30,873.0

Total (km ) 152.8 290.6 299.8 922.8 766.4 318.0 2,147.5 43.8 160.5 95.3 35,759.5 30,851.5 494.5 72,303.1 2

GRAY TREEFROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 35.9 117.9 19.8 - 5.5 7.9 2.6 8.4 73.4 0.7 - - 272.1

 2 107.6 54.6 - 15.5 0.0 263.3 76.2 0.7 14.2 13.4 - - 545.5

 3 - - 88.4 543.9 0.6 3.3 431.3 33.8 0.8 20.7 10,894.7 3.7 12,021.3

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 23,156.7 23,180.9

Total (km ) 143.6 172.5 108.1 559.4 6.2 274.6 534.3 42.9 88.4 34.8 10,894.7 23,160.5 117.3 36,137.1 2

SPRING PEEPER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 35.5 115.0 45.0 - 639.3 7.4 17.1 8.4 136.3 0.7 - - 1,004.8

 2 112.3 165.9 - 14.9 115.9 288.7 383.8 0.3 19.2 15.2 - - 1,116.3

 3 - - 245.3 945.2 0.7 3.4 1,729.9 32.1 0.5 78.4 39,003.4 3.9 42,042.8
A11 - 6

 4 - - - - - - 23.8 - - 0.0 - 25,895.8 25,919.7

Total (km ) 147.9 281.0 290.3 960.1 755.9 299.6 2,154.6 40.9 156.1 94.2 39,003.4 25,899.7 488.7 70,572.3 2

BULLFROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.3 9.8 2.7 - 53.3 0.6 0.2 3.8 34.0 0.0 - - 108.8

 2 43.0 10.4 - 4.8 11.6 98.9 65.5 0.2 6.2 1.2 - - 241.7

 3 - - 11.6 134.7 0.1 0.6 147.2 3.4 0.0 3.0 3,731.0 1.4 4,033.1

 4 - - - - - - 1.8 - - 0.0 - 2,841.5 2,843.3

Total (km ) 47.3 20.2 14.3 139.5 64.9 100.1 214.7 7.5 40.2 4.3 3,731.0 2,842.9 1,968.3 9,195.2 2

GREEN FROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 34.5 114.0 44.8 - 621.7 7.1 16.2 7.0 129.5 0.6 - - 975.4

 2 102.7 160.9 - 14.4 115.0 281.2 371.6 0.2 17.9 13.8 - - 1,077.8

 3 - - 239.3 835.6 0.7 3.4 1,653.6 30.0 0.5 72.0 32,626.1 3.1 35,464.3

 4 - - - - - - 23.5 - - 0.0 - 23,513.6 23,537.1

Total (km ) 137.2 274.9 284.1 850.0 737.4 291.8 2,064.9 37.2 147.8 86.4 32,626.1 23,516.7 461.5 61,516.1 2

PICKEREL FROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.7 121.8 45.6 - 660.6 8.6 18.1 8.8 143.6 0.7 - - 1,044.5

 2 127.3 170.9 - 14.9 117.5 315.0 395.9 0.7 20.7 16.3 - - 1,179.2

 3 - - 250.3 957.2 0.8 3.7 1,745.0 34.0 0.9 79.7 39,291.2 4.1 42,367.0

 4 - - - - - - 24.3 - - 0.0 - 30,902.7 30,927.0

Total (km ) 164.0 292.6 296.0 972.1 779.0 327.3 2,183.3 43.5 165.2 96.6 39,291.2 30,906.8 510.6 76,028.2 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 LEOPARD FROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 7

Category 1 5.4 36.6 31.5 - 318.7 4.8 9.7 4.3 59.5 0.6 - - 471.1

 2 53.1 64.7 - 6.9 27.8 179.7 189.7 0.6 11.0 8.1 - - 541.6

 3 - - 177.5 421.1 0.5 2.2 840.5 10.6 0.6 43.5 17,596.8 1.3 19,094.6

 4 - - - - - - 7.1 - - 0.0 - 18,419.4 18,426.5

Total (km ) 58.5 101.3 208.9 428.0 347.0 186.6 1,047.0 15.6 71.1 52.2 17,596.8 18,420.7 229.9 38,763.8 2

MINK FROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.7 0.0 0.5 - 57.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 27.3 0.0 - - 91.5

 2 20.1 6.7 - 2.7 12.8 57.9 81.6 0.0 3.2 0.8 - - 185.7

 3 - - 11.9 130.9 0.0 0.0 175.6 0.0 0.0 9.8 4,358.6 1.3 4,688.3

 4 - - - - - - 1.4 - - 0.0 - 1,136.9 1,138.3

Total (km ) 24.8 6.7 12.4 133.7 70.2 58.0 260.0 0.0 30.6 10.5 4,358.6 1,138.3 1,481.6 7,585.4 2

WOOD FROG FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 35.6 117.6 45.0 - 631.6 7.2 16.6 8.0 133.3 0.7 - - 995.6

 2 111.3 166.0 - 16.9 115.5 295.9 385.3 0.3 19.0 14.3 - - 1,124.6

 3 - - 241.8 887.9 0.6 3.5 1,706.6 31.7 0.5 74.8 34,575.1 4.1 37,526.6

 4 - - - - - - 24.0 - - 0.0 - 25,118.3 25,142.3

Total (km ) 146.8 283.6 286.8 904.7 747.8 306.6 2,132.5 40.1 152.8 89.8 34,575.1 25,122.4 2,217.8 67,006.9 2

SNAPPING FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

TURTLE

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 5.3 14.2 1.4 - 15.4 1.1 0.6 4.8 32.7 0.0 - - 75.4

 2 45.4 9.9 - 6.5 0.1 106.0 35.8 0.4 3.9 1.9 - - 210.2

 3 - - 7.9 118.2 0.1 0.8 94.8 4.6 0.1 3.3 2,650.1 1.8 2,881.7

 4 - - - - - - 2.1 - - 0.0 - 4,060.4 4,062.5
A11 - 8

Total (km ) 50.7 24.1 9.3 124.7 15.6 108.0 133.2 9.9 36.7 5.2 2,650.1 4,062.2 1,883.8 9,113.6 2

COMMON MUSK Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TURTLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 - - 0.2

 2 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 - - 2.7

 3 - - 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 30.7

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 141.8 141.8

Total (km ) 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 25.3 141.8 159.1 334.5 2

PAINTED TURTLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 5.4 13.1 0.0 - 49.7 1.1 0.5 4.8 34.1 0.0 - - 108.7

 2 46.1 11.1 - 6.6 7.9 97.2 42.4 0.4 3.9 1.9 - - 217.6

 3 - - 9.7 121.1 0.1 0.6 116.3 4.3 0.1 3.5 3,001.0 1.8 3,258.5

 4 - - - - - - 2.4 - - 0.0 - 3,937.3 3,939.7

Total (km ) 51.5 24.2 9.7 127.7 57.7 98.9 161.6 9.5 38.1 5.5 3,001.0 3,939.1 2,050.9 9,575.4 2

SPOTTED TURTLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 - - 0.6

 2 3.8 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 - - 4.6

 3 - - 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 165.2 165.2

Total (km ) 3.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 165.2 4.4 175.5 2

WOOD TURTLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 24.9 70.6 16.2 - 297.4 6.2 7.1 8.8 104.6 0.2 - - 536.0
A11 - 9

 2 100.8 78.5 - 16.2 64.7 232.1 261.0 0.7 16.3 9.7 - - 780.1

 3 - - 91.7 544.1 0.7 2.6 821.1 20.9 0.5 40.7 19,382.0 4.4 20,908.7

 4 - - - - - - 11.6 - - 0.0 - 16,082.6 16,094.3

Total (km ) 125.7 149.1 107.9 560.4 362.8 240.9 1,100.9 30.4 121.4 50.6 19,382.0 16,087.1 1,333.4 39,652.4 2

BLANDING'S Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TURTLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 - - 12.9

 2 11.8 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 7.8 1.7 0.0 1.1 1.9 - - 24.3

 3 - - 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.1 26.9

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,371.2 1,371.2

Total (km ) 11.8 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 11.7 3.5 0.0 10.1 1.9 11.8 1,371.4 6.1 1,441.4 2

EASTERN BOX Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TURTLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 2.2 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 - - 2.6

 2 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 - - 6.1

 3 - - 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 8.6 0.0 21.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 289.7 289.7

Total (km ) 0.2 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 8.6 289.7 1.2 321.1 2

RACER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 4.5 0.1 0.0 11.9 0.0 - - 16.5

 2 6.3 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 34.8 2.3 0.0 0.9 3.4 - - 47.8

 3 - - 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.2 0.0 0.3 66.9 0.0 87.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 2,757.4 2,757.4

Total (km ) 6.3 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 39.3 7.6 1.2 12.8 3.8 66.9 2,757.4 2.9 2,911.9 2
A11 - 10

RINGNECK SNAKE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.4 113.0 42.6 - 608.6 7.8 2.7 5.5 95.2 0.7 - - 908.5

 2 81.3 162.4 - 13.9 81.6 211.6 266.8 0.6 14.3 12.6 - - 845.1

 3 - - 210.2 853.8 0.7 3.1 1,188.1 32.0 0.8 27.9 24,189.9 3.2 26,509.8

 4 - - - - - - 22.9 - - 0.0 - 26,085.0 26,107.9

Total (km ) 113.7 275.4 252.8 867.7 690.9 222.6 1,480.6 38.0 110.3 41.2 24,189.9 26,088.2 105.3 54,476.5 2

MILK SNAKE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.7 117.6 0.8 - 0.0 5.6 0.9 1.3 41.6 0.7 - - 169.1

 2 11.2 35.8 - 0.3 0.0 128.9 45.8 0.4 9.9 8.2 - - 240.5

 3 - - 24.6 0.0 0.6 2.7 55.4 10.9 0.8 12.1 648.2 0.3 755.7

 4 - - - - - - 5.5 - - 0.0 - 15,435.8 15,441.4

Total (km ) 11.9 153.3 25.3 0.3 0.6 137.2 107.7 12.6 52.3 21.0 648.2 15,436.1 35.3 16,641.9 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WATER SNAKE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.5 0.5 0.0 - 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 - - 6.4

 2 6.7 0.2 - 0.0 0.0 27.8 3.2 0.0 1.6 0.7 - - 40.3

 3 - - 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.2 0.5 0.0 0.7 27.4 0.1 36.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.3 - - 0.0 - 1,058.3 1,058.6

Total (km ) 7.2 0.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 28.4 8.9 0.5 6.4 1.4 27.4 1,058.4 451.5 1,593.7 2

SMOOTH GREEN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SNAKE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.8 36.1 31.4 - 0.0 4.3 0.2 3.8 21.2 0.6 - - 103.2

 2 39.0 11.3 - 7.0 0.0 135.3 57.3 0.5 7.7 5.1 - - 263.2

 3 - - 132.3 128.8 0.3 2.2 161.0 10.9 0.6 10.0 3,431.7 1.2 3,878.8
A11 - 11

 4 - - - - - - 7.7 - - 0.0 - 14,234.9 14,242.6

Total (km ) 44.8 47.3 163.6 135.8 0.3 141.9 226.0 15.2 29.4 15.7 3,431.7 14,236.1 65.3 18,553.1 2

BROWN SNAKE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 5.5 0.5 0.3 25.7 0.0 - - 32.1

 2 8.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 31.3 11.0 0.0 1.4 5.5 - - 57.4

 3 - - 13.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.3 0.6 0.9 2.0 22.5 0.1 44.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 3,900.9 3,900.9

Total (km ) 8.4 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.6 36.8 15.8 0.9 27.9 7.5 22.5 3,901.0 7.7 4,042.5 2

REDBELLY SNAKE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.4 119.5 45.7 - 630.4 8.0 2.4 9.6 124.2 0.7 - - 977.0

 2 121.3 168.4 - 16.0 89.0 295.7 328.0 0.8 21.2 13.7 - - 1,054.2

 3 - - 219.8 980.9 0.6 3.7 1,337.8 35.6 0.8 31.3 29,844.3 4.1 32,459.1

 4 - - - - - - 24.6 - - 0.0 - 27,948.5 27,973.0

Total (km ) 157.7 287.9 265.5 996.9 720.1 307.5 1,692.9 46.0 146.3 45.7 29,844.3 27,952.6 224.2 62,687.4 2

EASTERN RIBBON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SNAKE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.2 0.7 3.4 - 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.6 7.9 0.0 - - 14.6

 2 16.3 0.9 - 0.1 0.0 37.2 5.6 0.5 3.4 1.2 - - 65.1

 3 - - 10.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 12.5 3.6 0.1 3.0 129.9 0.2 160.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 2,863.1 2,863.1

Total (km ) 16.4 1.5 13.6 0.2 0.1 38.6 18.2 5.7 11.4 4.2 129.9 2,863.3 35.2 3,138.5 2
A11 - 12

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

GARTER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 SNAKE

Category 1 37.5 121.1 45.8 - 665.9 8.4 17.3 9.5 143.5 0.7 - - 1,049.7

 2 121.6 172.0 - 15.1 118.1 311.5 397.5 0.7 21.9 16.4 - - 1,174.8

 3 - - 252.5 981.6 0.7 3.7 1,773.3 34.9 0.8 81.5 40,891.3 4.2 44,024.5

 4 - - - - - - 25.1 - - 0.0 - 31,119.0 31,144.1

Total (km ) 159.1 293.1 298.3 996.7 784.6 323.6 2,213.1 45.1 166.3 98.6 40,891.3 31,123.2 515.9 77,909.0 2

COMMON LOON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.3 5.8 0.1 - 17.9 0.7 1.2 0.3 11.4 0.0 - - 39.7

 2 16.1 8.2 - 3.0 2.6 35.2 56.3 0.0 1.7 0.6 - - 123.6

 3 - - 3.2 41.1 0.1 0.1 58.3 1.3 0.1 1.3 979.5 1.2 1,086.2

 4 - - - - - - 1.0 - - 0.0 - 1,048.9 1,049.9

Total (km ) 18.4 14.0 3.2 44.1 20.6 36.0 116.8 1.6 13.2 1.9 979.5 1,050.1 3,356.7 5,656.2 2

PIED-BILLED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GREBE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 2.7 5.8 0.1 - 22.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 11.5 0.0 - - 45.3

 2 20.2 9.0 - 4.2 2.9 43.2 49.1 0.0 1.8 0.7 - - 131.1

 3 - - 4.1 47.6 0.1 0.2 62.4 1.5 0.1 2.3 1,080.7 1.3 1,200.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.9 - - 0.0 - 1,241.4 1,242.3

Total (km ) 22.9 14.8 4.1 51.9 25.8 44.0 113.5 2.4 13.3 3.0 1,080.7 1,242.7 2,698.7 5,317.7 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BITTERN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 2.8 6.8 0.3 - 30.9 0.7 1.2 0.9 11.2 0.0 - - 54.7

 2 20.5 9.2 - 3.9 3.7 43.8 48.6 0.1 1.7 0.7 - - 132.2
A11 - 13

 3 - - 6.2 51.5 0.1 0.2 73.0 1.8 0.1 3.1 1,439.2 1.1 1,576.3

 4 - - - - - - 1.3 - - 0.0 - 1,470.5 1,471.8

Total (km ) 23.2 16.1 6.5 55.4 34.7 44.6 124.1 2.7 13.0 3.8 1,439.2 1,471.7 458.0 3,693.0 2

LEAST BITTERN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.6 4.4 0.0 - 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.5 0.0 - - 9.3

 2 10.8 1.5 - 0.0 0.0 15.5 3.5 0.1 0.8 0.4 - - 32.5

 3 - - 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 7.5 0.6 0.0 0.5 103.3 0.1 113.2

 4 - - - - - - 1.0 - - 0.0 - 604.7 605.7

Total (km ) 11.4 5.9 0.5 0.7 0.1 15.8 12.2 0.8 4.3 0.9 103.3 604.8 16.0 776.7 2

GREAT BLUE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HERON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 14.3 40.3 9.7 - 170.0 3.8 4.1 6.3 70.8 0.0 - - 319.4

 2 75.5 45.1 - 8.4 37.4 165.3 152.9 0.5 10.8 5.5 - - 501.4

 3 - - 55.2 300.7 0.6 1.7 462.8 11.3 0.2 24.7 10,487.9 2.2 11,347.3

 4 - - - - - - 6.6 - - 0.0 - 8,935.2 8,941.8

Total (km ) 89.8 85.4 64.9 309.1 208.0 170.9 626.3 18.0 81.8 30.2 10,487.9 8,937.4 446.6 21,556.5 2

SNOWY EGRET FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.1 10.3 0.0 - - 12.9

 2 12.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 11.3 6.6 0.0 1.1 1.7 - - 33.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 2.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 875.1 875.1

Total (km ) 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 13.0 8.0 0.2 11.8 1.8 0.4 875.1 13.0 936.3 2
A11 - 14

LITTLE BLUE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HERON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 - - 4.0

 2 13.6 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.2 0.0 0.8 1.2 - - 24.3

 3 - - 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 8.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 629.2 629.2

Total (km ) 13.6 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 10.2 2.0 0.0 2.2 1.2 0.8 629.3 9.3 675.0 2

CATTLE EGRET FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 - - 7.4

 2 13.5 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 7.5 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 - - 25.7

 3 - - 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 18.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,237.0 1,237.0

Total (km ) 13.5 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 11.4 3.5 0.0 4.5 2.0 7.7 1,237.1 15.6 1,304.0 2

GREEN HERON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 26.3 72.0 15.7 - 0.0 6.0 2.5 1.8 52.5 0.1 - - 176.9

 2 73.9 33.6 - 1.1 0.0 131.5 58.4 0.2 6.7 5.2 - - 310.5

 3 - - 61.3 164.9 0.8 1.8 194.8 11.5 0.5 8.0 3,348.1 1.8 3,793.4

 4 - - - - - - 11.2 - - 0.0 - 9,062.3 9,073.5

Total (km ) 100.2 105.6 77.0 166.0 0.8 139.2 266.9 13.6 59.6 13.3 3,348.1 9,064.1 90.6 13,445.0 2

BLACK-CROWNED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 NIGHT-HERON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 7.3 90.5 0.0 - 0.0 4.7 1.8 0.2 37.6 0.0 - - 142.1

 2 21.5 36.7 - 0.0 0.0 24.2 21.5 0.0 4.6 2.7 - - 111.1

 3 - - 30.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 77.3 0.1 0.2 1.6 640.6 0.2 751.1
A11 - 15

 4 - - - - - - 6.5 - - 0.0 - 4,155.1 4,161.7

Total (km ) 28.8 127.2 30.5 0.0 0.6 28.9 107.0 0.3 42.4 4.4 640.6 4,155.3 22.8 5,188.8 2

GLOSSY IBIS FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - 0.8

 2 10.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 - - 16.1

 3 - - 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 140.3 140.3

Total (km ) 10.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 140.3 5.4 163.4 2

CANADA GOOSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 5.5 15.2 3.3 - 47.2 1.8 2.3 5.1 41.4 0.0 - - 121.7

 2 56.7 14.2 - 2.5 11.4 115.1 83.0 0.6 7.8 3.3 - - 294.7

 3 - - 28.3 145.3 0.3 0.8 188.7 5.9 0.4 14.1 4,714.5 1.6 5,099.8

 4 - - - - - - 2.1 - - 0.0 - 8,645.6 8,647.7

Total (km ) 62.2 29.4 31.6 147.9 58.9 117.6 276.1 11.6 49.6 17.5 4,714.5 8,647.2 1,658.0 15,821.9 2

WOOD DUCK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 21.4 56.5 13.5 - 206.7 4.8 6.2 6.2 91.5 0.1 - - 406.8

 2 79.3 61.9 - 15.0 59.8 188.0 222.2 0.2 12.8 7.3 - - 646.6

 3 - - 68.8 425.6 0.6 2.3 680.0 16.2 0.4 30.5 14,182.2 3.7 15,410.4

 4 - - - - - - 9.0 - - 0.0 - 11,012.9 11,021.9

Total (km ) 100.7 118.4 82.3 440.6 267.2 195.1 917.5 22.6 104.7 37.9 14,182.2 11,016.6 1,844.6 29,330.3 2

GREEN-WINGED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TEAL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 16

Category 1 6.0 12.4 3.6 - 68.0 1.6 2.5 6.0 43.0 0.0 - - 143.0

 2 55.4 14.6 - 2.7 12.9 111.1 70.8 0.6 8.8 2.6 - - 279.3

 3 - - 23.7 195.0 0.2 0.9 225.1 6.3 0.1 16.2 7,199.7 1.4 7,668.5

 4 - - - - - - 2.7 - - 0.0 - 5,465.0 5,467.7

Total (km ) 61.3 26.9 27.3 197.6 81.1 113.5 301.0 12.8 51.9 18.9 7,199.7 5,466.3 190.1 13,748.5 2

MALLARD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 7.5 18.6 3.7 - 65.9 2.3 2.6 6.0 49.3 0.0 - - 155.8

 2 63.1 19.9 - 6.4 13.5 130.2 111.3 0.7 9.7 4.2 - - 359.0

 3 - - 34.9 185.0 0.3 0.9 241.7 7.8 0.4 17.9 6,628.3 2.3 7,119.6

 4 - - - - - - 3.2 - - 0.0 - 9,553.0 9,556.3

Total (km ) 70.6 38.5 38.6 191.4 79.7 133.4 358.8 14.4 59.5 22.1 6,628.3 9,555.4 2,197.5 19,388.3 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BLACK DUCK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 6.6 13.0 3.2 - 63.4 1.5 2.3 4.7 44.5 0.0 - - 139.3

 2 57.9 16.8 - 6.2 13.4 118.8 95.9 0.3 8.3 2.4 - - 319.9

 3 - - 22.2 171.9 0.2 0.8 233.5 5.6 0.1 14.7 6,189.9 2.1 6,641.1

 4 - - - - - - 3.0 - - 0.0 - 4,331.8 4,334.8

Total (km ) 64.5 29.8 25.4 178.1 77.1 121.1 334.8 10.5 52.9 17.2 6,189.9 4,333.9 2,133.1 13,568.3 2

BLUE-WINGED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TEAL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.6 12.7 3.4 - 0.0 1.3 0.3 5.1 19.6 0.0 - - 48.1

 2 53.9 5.9 - 4.6 0.0 96.6 30.3 0.5 4.0 2.0 - - 197.9

 3 - - 22.4 102.5 0.1 0.4 92.1 4.9 0.1 7.2 1,840.1 1.3 2,071.0

 4 - - - - - - 2.5 - - 0.0 - 4,882.8 4,885.3

Total (km ) 59.5 18.6 25.8 107.1 0.1 98.3 125.2 10.6 23.8 9.2 1,840.1 4,884.1 945.5 8,147.9 2
A11 - 17

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WIGEON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 0.1

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 0.3

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 157.0 157.0

Total (km ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 157.0 23.3 181.3 2

RING-NECKED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 DUCK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.1 8.1 2.5 - 39.2 0.6 1.4 3.8 34.1 0.0 - - 93.8

 2 38.4 8.4 - 5.4 10.2 94.5 88.6 0.1 6.0 1.3 - - 252.9

 3 - - 16.4 128.9 0.1 0.5 174.0 3.5 0.0 11.1 4,069.9 1.9 4,406.3

 4 - - - - - - 1.5 - - 0.0 - 2,643.0 2,644.5

Total (km ) 42.5 16.6 18.8 134.2 49.6 95.6 265.5 7.5 40.1 12.4 4,069.9 2,644.9 1,622.1 9,019.5 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GOLDENEYE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 13.1 39.8 9.7 - 173.8 0.7 3.6 5.2 56.8 0.0 - - 302.8

 2 57.3 44.0 - 12.2 38.8 122.3 169.4 0.3 9.2 2.7 - - 456.2

 3 - - 45.0 314.6 0.0 1.8 481.4 10.1 0.0 22.8 10,643.4 2.9 11,521.8

 4 - - - - - - 6.4 - - 0.0 - 6,289.4 6,295.7

Total (km ) 70.4 83.9 54.7 326.8 212.6 124.8 660.7 15.6 66.1 25.5 10,643.4 6,292.3 1,046.2 19,622.8 2

HOODED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MERGANSER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 13.5 36.7 8.5 - 142.2 3.5 4.5 5.7 73.8 0.0 - - 288.5

 2 69.8 44.5 - 12.6 37.3 163.1 172.5 0.2 10.9 5.0 - - 515.9
A11 - 18

 3 - - 47.2 304.8 0.5 1.8 456.3 10.5 0.2 21.6 10,033.8 3.2 10,880.1

 4 - - - - - - 5.4 - - 0.0 - 7,738.7 7,744.1

Total (km ) 83.3 81.2 55.6 317.4 180.0 168.4 638.6 16.5 84.9 26.7 10,033.8 7,742.0 1,855.3 21,283.8 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MERGANSER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 21.7 14.2 14.7 - 242.4 1.3 5.3 6.0 61.7 0.0 - - 367.3

 2 74.1 47.0 - 15.0 61.9 144.1 209.1 0.1 7.5 3.6 - - 562.3

 3 - - 64.6 446.6 0.0 1.8 702.6 13.1 0.0 29.2 14,720.4 3.4 15,981.6

 4 - - - - - - 8.3 - - 0.0 - 6,705.9 6,714.2

Total (km ) 95.8 61.2 79.3 461.5 304.4 147.2 925.3 19.3 69.2 32.7 14,720.4 6,709.3 3,136.4 26,761.8 2

RED-BREASTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MERGANSER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.9 12.0 0.0 - 1.1 1.1 3.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 - - 36.3

 2 14.1 11.6 - 0.0 2.3 11.8 55.0 0.0 2.6 0.3 - - 97.7

 3 - - 1.8 28.4 0.0 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 1,622.1 0.6 1,748.8

 4 - - - - - - 1.4 - - 0.0 - 861.8 862.2

Total (km ) 19.0 23.7 1.8 28.4 3.4 12.8 146.9 0.0 16.4 9.2 1,622.1 862.4 1183.7 3,929.8 2 *

TURKEY FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

VULTURE

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 1.4 128.0 0.1 - 0.0 5.6 2.1 0.7 48.3 0.6 - - 186.9

 2 23.3 43.5 - 0.5 0.0 124.3 40.5 0.4 8.3 7.8 - - 248.6

 3 - - 15.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 77.8 12.0 0.9 9.5 788.4 0.7 906.0

 4 - - - - - - 14.0 - - 0.0 - 12,582.2 12,596.3

Total (km ) 24.7 171.5 15.1 0.5 0.7 130.9 134.4 13.1 57.5 18.0 788.4 12,582.9 31.3 13,969.1 2
A11 - 19

OSPREY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 26.1 70.7 15.4 - 217.3 6.5 9.2 6.2 102.4 0.1 - - 453.7

 2 94.5 72.3 - 16.5 70.0 217.4 236.3 0.2 13.0 8.9 - - 729.2

 3 - - 75.2 482.8 0.7 2.8 789.2 18.7 0.5 34.5 16,082.4 4.1 17,491.0

 4 - - - - - - 10.1 - - 0.0 - 13,477.8 13,487.9

Total (km ) 120.6 143.0 90.5 499.3 288.1 226.7 1,044.8 25.1 115.9 43.5 16,082.4 13,477.8 6419.1 38,580.8 2 *

BALD EAGLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 8.9 1.7 0.0 - 2.2 0.7 1.1 0.0 11.9 0.0 - - 26.6

 2 8.7 6.5 - 3.3 0.0 22.0 18.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - 59.5

 3 - - 0.0 16.8 0.3 0.2 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 177.1 0.8 214.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 400.6 400.6

Total (km ) 17.7 8.2 0.0 20.2 2.5 22.9 39.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 177.1 401.4 362.0 1,073.2 2 *

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HARRIER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.3 7.6 0.5 - 28.0 1.2 0.5 3.5 21.3 0.0 - - 66.9

 2 34.3 9.1 - 0.7 4.9 62.5 51.0 0.6 5.8 2.4 - - 171.2

 3 - - 17.4 82.1 0.1 0.2 89.1 4.2 0.4 7.0 3,304.9 0.6 3,505.9

 4 - - - - - - 2.3 - - 0.0 - 7,001.5 7,003.9

Total (km ) 38.5 16.7 18.0 82.7 33.0 64.0 142.9 8.2 27.4 9.4 3,304.9 7,002.1 154.5 10,902.3 2

SHARP-SHINNED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HAWK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.8 109.0 42.0 - 618.5 7.4 15.2 6.3 105.8 0.6 - - 937.4

 2 81.1 160.0 - 12.9 105.8 224.8 328.8 0.6 15.6 15.0 - - 944.7

 3 - - 235.1 840.3 0.5 2.9 1,579.2 30.6 0.8 69.4 35,851.2 3.1 38,613.1
A11 - 20

 4 - - - - - - 22.9 - - 0.0 - 27,991.3 28,014.2

Total (km ) 113.9 269.0 277.1 853.2 724.8 235.1 1,946.1 37.6 122.2 84.9 35,851.2 27,994.4 351.4 68,860.9 2

COOPER'S HAWK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 33.1 108.9 41.9 - 595.9 7.4 2.1 6.3 93.8 0.6 - - 890.2

 2 81.3 158.5 - 13.7 79.1 205.5 272.4 0.6 15.1 12.7 - - 838.9

 3 - - 206.3 840.9 0.5 2.9 1,184.2 31.7 0.8 28.0 24,673.5 3.2 26,972.1

 4 - - - - - - 23.3 - - 0.0 - 25,013.2 25,036.5

Total (km ) 114.4 267.4 248.2 854.6 675.6 215.8 1,482.1 38.7 109.7 41.4 24,673.5 25,016.3 113.9 53,851.6 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GOSHAWK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 29.6 104.8 41.7 - 570.7 7.0 14.1 3.8 97.1 0.6 - - 869.4

 2 65.3 150.1 - 11.7 101.4 196.5 305.6 0.4 13.3 13.7 - - 858.2

 3 - - 225.3 715.9 0.5 2.8 1,463.3 27.5 0.7 62.3 29,022.5 2.1 31,523.1

 4 - - - - - - 21.9 - - 0.0 - 25,109.7 25,131.6

Total (km ) 95.0 254.9 267.0 727.7 672.7 206.3 1,804.9 31.8 111.2 76.7 29,022.5 25,111.8 273.7 58,656.0 2

RED-SHOULDERE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

D FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 HAWK

Category 1 35.6 115.2 44.6 - 543.2 7.7 2.4 9.1 112.5 0.6 - - 870.9

 2 112.8 160.6 - 15.2 59.9 284.5 282.6 0.7 20.1 13.4 - - 949.8

 3 - - 212.5 850.2 0.6 3.5 1,203.5 33.4 0.8 28.6 22,498.9 3.2 24,835.3

 4 - - - - - - 24.2 - - 0.0 - 26,435.4 26,459.6

Total (km ) 148.5 275.7 257.1 865.4 603.8 295.7 1,512.7 43.2 133.4 42.6 22,498.9 26,438.6 175.3 53,290.9 2
A11 - 21

BROAD-WINGED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HAWK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.4 105.2 41.2 - 573.2 7.0 14.3 4.1 97.6 0.6 - - 873.5

 2 67.4 152.1 - 12.0 101.0 201.4 306.1 0.4 13.5 14.0 - - 868.0

 3 - - 224.9 715.4 0.6 2.8 1,470.4 28.0 0.7 62.6 29,239.0 2.2 31,746.5

 4 - - - - - - 21.8 - - 0.0 - 25,163.9 25,185.8

Total (km ) 97.8 257.3 266.0 727.5 674.7 211.2 1,812.6 32.5 111.9 77.2 29,239.0 25,166.2 276.1 58,949.9 2

RED-TAILED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HAWK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 26.9 70.2 38.9 - 531.1 7.8 14.3 9.5 107.2 0.7 - - 806.6

 2 104.4 107.4 - 14.5 78.9 284.4 310.7 0.8 16.6 14.2 - - 931.8

 3 - - 239.6 863.3 0.6 3.4 1,543.7 29.8 0.8 73.3 36,153.7 3.8 38,911.9

 4 - - - - - - 19.8 - - 0.0 - 28,933.4 28,953.2

Total (km ) 131.3 177.6 278.5 877.9 610.6 295.6 1,888.5 40.1 124.5 88.1 36,153.7 28,937.2 375.0 69,978.4 2

GOLDEN EAGLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.7 - 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 1.3

 2 0.0 4.6 - 0.0 0.0 9.4 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 31.8

 3 - - 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 274.6 0.0 303.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 120.3 120.3

Total (km ) 0.0 4.6 3.7 0.1 0.5 9.4 42.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 274.6 120.3 4.6 461.1 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 KESTREL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.0 10.6 0.7 - 72.7 1.6 1.6 3.8 26.1 0.0 - - 122.1

 2 39.0 14.1 - 0.8 7.1 68.3 52.3 0.6 6.8 2.7 - - 191.8

 3 - - 19.1 146.9 0.1 0.3 130.5 5.6 0.4 9.8 7,565.0 1.3 7,878.9
A11 - 22

 4 - - - - - - 2.5 - - 0.0 - 8,295.6 8,298.1

Total (km ) 44.0 24.7 19.7 147.7 79.9 70.2 187.0 10.0 33.3 12.5 7,565.0 8,296.9 140.4 16,631.3 2

MERLIN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 14.6 93.9 0.0 - 127.0 2.5 16.1 0.0 46.7 0.0 - - 300.8

 2 17.8 42.9 - 0.0 66.7 33.4 145.3 0.0 3.6 2.6 - - 312.4

 3 - - 36.2 19.9 0.0 0.0 606.9 0.0 0.0 49.9 14,541.2 0.2 15,254.4

 4 - - - - - - 11.0 - - 0.0 - 4,381.5 4,392.4

Total (km ) 32.4 136.8 36.2 19.9 193.7 36.0 779.4 0.0 50.3 52.4 14,541.2 4,381.7 41.8 20,301.8 2

PEREGRINE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FALCON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 85.7 22.6 - 504.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.9 0.0 - - 619.8

 2 0.1 16.3 - 0.0 15.8 6.2 44.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - 83.3

 3 - - 60.7 27.6 0.0 0.0 104.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 588.7 0.0 782.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 820.1 820.1

Total (km ) 0.1 102.0 83.3 27.6 519.8 6.2 150.3 0.5 7.0 0.0 588.7 820.1 98.2 2,403.8 2

SPRUCE GROUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 32.5 27.7 9.5 - 354.9 1.8 8.0 6.8 67.9 0.0 - - 509.3

 2 87.2 83.3 - 8.4 91.7 111.5 207.1 0.2 7.2 4.3 - - 600.9

 3 - - 61.6 598.7 0.0 0.5 947.6 22.3 0.0 36.3 24,249.5 2.9 25,919.4

 4 - - - - - - 18.4 - - 0.0 - 7,891.9 7,910.4

Total (km ) 119.8 111.1 71.2 607.1 446.7 113.8 1,181.0 29.3 75.1 40.6 24,249.5 7,894.9 89.8 35,029.8 2

RUFFED GROUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other
A11 - 23

Category 1 6.0 35.8 31.9 - 349.8 4.3 9.0 3.9 52.1 0.6 - - 493.3

 2 42.1 66.8 - 6.9 27.9 161.2 183.2 0.6 8.6 8.1 - - 505.4

 3 - - 173.2 504.4 0.3 2.2 907.6 12.4 0.5 48.0 23,332.4 2.0 24,982.9

 4 - - - - - - 7.1 - - 0.0 - 18,404.4 18,411.5

Total (km ) 48.1 102.5 205.0 511.3 378.1 167.6 1,107.0 16.8 61.2 56.7 23,332.4 18,406.4 177.0 44,570.2 2

WILD TURKEY FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 5.1 0.5 0.3 28.7 0.6 - - 35.3

 2 6.2 0.2 - 0.0 0.0 76.4 17.2 0.0 3.1 5.7 - - 108.9

 3 - - 11.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 26.0 2.5 0.8 4.8 154.2 0.1 200.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 7,382.0 7,382.0

Total (km ) 6.4 0.2 11.1 0.0 0.5 81.8 43.7 2.7 32.6 11.1 154.2 7,382.1 11.9 7,738.3 2

VIRGINIA RAIL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 1.6 2.6 0.0 - 12.3 0.1 0.0 1.2 12.2 0.0 - - 30.1

 2 20.9 2.6 - 0.2 3.1 40.7 29.2 0.1 3.2 0.1 - - 100.0

 3 - - 1.8 37.2 0.0 0.0 36.6 0.9 0.0 0.9 983.6 0.2 1,061.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.8 - - 0.0 - 583.5 584.3

Total (km ) 22.5 5.2 1.8 37.4 15.4 40.8 66.6 2.2 15.4 1.1 983.6 583.7 88.1 1,863.9 2

SORA FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 1.5 3.1 0.0 - 12.2 0.1 0.5 1.3 12.7 0.0 - - 31.4

 2 20.6 3.3 - 0.2 3.1 39.7 28.7 0.1 3.1 0.1 - - 99.0

 3 - - 3.3 36.7 0.0 0.0 41.5 1.0 0.0 2.4 1,053.6 0.3 1,138.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.9 - - 0.0 - 636.7 637.6

Total (km ) 22.1 6.4 3.3 36.9 15.3 39.8 71.6 2.3 15.8 2.5 1,053.6 637.0 106.6 2,013.2 2
A11 - 24

YELLOW RAIL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.8 1.7 0.0 - 4.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 8.1 0.0 - - 16.4

 2 11.5 1.7 - 0.1 1.5 17.6 17.8 0.0 2.1 0.1 - - 52.3

 3 - - 1.1 18.1 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 499.5 0.1 540.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.5 - - 0.0 - 285.3 285.7

Total (km ) 12.3 3.3 1.1 18.2 5.8 17.6 39.3 1.2 10.2 1.1 499.5 285.3 53.5 948.5 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MOORHEN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 2.4 0.0 - - 3.7

 2 7.7 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 5.6 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.3 - - 16.2

 3 - - 0.0 7.6 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 85.0 0.0 94.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 318.4 318.4

Total (km ) 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.1 5.8 3.0 1.1 3.3 0.6 85.0 318.4 10.2 442.9 2

AMERICAN COOT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 - - 1.9

 2 8.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 9.8 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 - - 19.7

 3 - - 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.0 4.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 126.1 126.1

Total (km ) 8.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 9.9 1.5 0.1 1.8 0.4 3.3 126.1 7.9 159.5 2

KILLDEER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 3.2 19.1 0.7 - 74.2 1.5 1.0 2.3 12.4 0.0 - - 114.5

 2 19.7 9.7 - 0.7 3.2 32.4 29.1 0.5 3.5 3.0 - - 101.9
A11 - 25

 3 - - 19.1 102.9 0.1 0.2 82.1 4.3 0.4 9.1 6,340.0 0.9 6,559.0

 4 - - - - - - 1.2 - - 0.0 - 8,050.2 8,051.4

Total (km ) 22.9 28.8 19.8 103.6 77.5 34.2 113.5 7.1 16.3 12.1 6,340.0 8,051.1 94.6 14,921.5 2

SPOTTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SANDPIPER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 3.9 8.8 0.6 - 36.7 0.9 0.6 2.8 18.9 0.0 - - 73.3

 2 33.0 9.2 - 0.4 5.5 61.6 49.2 0.5 4.2 1.8 - - 165.4

 3 - - 15.2 67.9 0.1 0.3 81.3 3.4 0.3 5.6 2,212.7 0.5 2,387.3

 4 - - - - - - 2.1 - - 0.0 - 5,769.0 5,771.1

Total (km ) 36.9 18.0 15.8 68.4 42.3 62.8 133.1 6.7 23.5 7.4 2,212.7 5,769.5 135.3 8,532.3 2

UPLAND Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SANDPIPER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 3.4 6.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.8 0.1 2.2 11.2 0.0 - - 23.9

 2 29.4 3.3 - 0.3 0.0 44.2 18.2 0.4 1.8 1.2 - - 98.7

 3 - - 1.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 2.6 0.3 2.0 693.6 0.3 764.8

 4 - - - - - - 1.8 - - 0.0 - 3,207.2 3,209.1

Total (km ) 32.8 9.4 1.0 37.7 0.0 45.0 47.6 5.2 13.3 3.2 693.6 3,207.6 30.5 4,127.0 2

COMMON SNIPE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.5 6.0 1.9 - 24.6 0.9 1.0 3.5 30.7 0.0 - - 71.2

 2 44.1 5.6 - 1.2 6.7 87.0 53.8 0.3 5.6 1.8 - - 206.3

 3 - - 16.1 88.2 0.2 0.5 113.8 2.9 0.2 10.5 3,001.6 0.8 3,234.9

 4 - - - - - - 1.0 - - 0.0 - 4,909.1 4,910.1

Total (km ) 46.6 11.7 18.1 89.5 31.5 88.4 169.7 6.8 36.5 12.3 3,001.6 4,909.9 165.4 8,587.8 2
A11 - 26

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOODCOCK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.0 8.4 0.6 - 62.4 1.1 1.6 3.5 24.5 0.0 - - 107.1

 2 39.7 15.8 - 2.1 7.3 75.3 51.7 0.3 6.9 2.2 - - 201.1

 3 - - 14.4 176.5 0.1 0.2 179.4 5.4 0.0 11.0 9,380.5 1.5 9,769.1

 4 - - - - - - 2.3 - - 0.0 - 4,399.9 4,402.1

Total (km ) 44.8 24.2 15.0 178.6 69.7 76.5 235.0 9.2 31.4 13.2 9,380.5 4,401.4 106.3 14,585.7 2

HERRING GULL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.7 1.9 0.0 - 3.7 0.4 1.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 - - 11.5

 2 1.9 2.4 - 0.0 0.2 7.7 15.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 - - 28.0

 3 - - 0.7 6.6 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 164.3 0.5 187.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 583.7 583.8

Total (km ) 2.6 4.3 0.7 6.6 3.9 8.2 31.1 0.1 4.2 0.1 164.3 584.2 8,925.8 9,736.2 2 *

*

GREATER BLACK- Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BACKED GULL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 1.8 17.9 0.0 - 0.0 1.1 2.7 0.0 8.5 0.0 - - 32.1

 2 11.9 5.6 - 0.0 0.0 14.9 4.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 - - 37.7

 3 - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 33.6 0.2 38.9

 4 - - - - - - 0.8 - - 0.0 - 855.8 856.6

Total (km ) 13.7 23.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 16.0 11.9 0.1 9.4 0.5 33.6 856.0 5892.5 6,857.8 2 **

COMMON TERN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.8 2.0 0.0 - 2.2 0.5 1.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 - - 10.0

 2 1.4 2.1 - 0.0 0.2 3.3 9.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - 16.9

 3 - - 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 72.0 0.3 80.2
A11 - 27

 4 - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 220.7 220.8

Total (km ) 2.2 4.1 0.2 3.1 2.5 3.8 15.3 0.0 3.5 0.1 72.0 221.0 499.3 827.2 2 *

BLACK TERN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 2 0.6 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 1.1

 3 - - 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 11.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 20.6 20.6

Total (km ) 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 20.6 25.2 57.9 2

MOURNING DOVE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.1 8.2 1.0 - 53.3 1.5 1.4 3.4 15.9 0.0 - - 88.8

 2 25.1 14.3 - 1.1 3.4 46.2 31.0 0.6 4.4 3.6 - - 129.8

 3 - - 23.2 152.0 0.1 0.2 140.5 5.6 0.4 12.2 8,612.5 1.2 8,947.9

 4 - - - - - - 1.8 - - 0.0 - 9,077.0 9,078.7

Total (km ) 29.2 22.5 24.2 153.1 56.8 47.9 174.7 9.6 20.7 15.8 8,612.5 9,078.2 74.2 18,319.5 2

BLACK-BILLED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CUCKOO FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 33.6 110.0 42.6 - 633.1 7.5 15.3 5.8 111.7 0.6 - - 960.2

 2 88.8 162.6 - 12.8 109.2 243.1 343.3 0.6 16.1 14.9 - - 991.4

 3 - - 235.4 864.9 0.5 3.0 1,615.3 31.5 0.8 70.4 36,746.9 3.4 39,572.1

 4 - - - - - - 23.6 - - 0.0 - 27,760.1 27,783.7

Total (km ) 122.4 272.6 278.0 877.7 742.8 253.6 1,997.5 37.9 128.5 85.9 36,746.9 27,763.4 353.2 69,660.6 2

YELLOW-BILLED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CUCKOO FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 28

Category 1 5.7 35.0 22.1 - 0.0 4.3 0.3 0.3 19.8 0.6 - - 88.1

 2 28.4 7.3 - 0.6 0.0 80.2 33.0 0.3 2.8 3.5 - - 156.1

 3 - - 94.8 57.2 0.3 0.6 98.6 5.6 0.5 6.1 2,042.8 1.3 2,307.9

 4 - - - - - - 7.3 - - 0.0 - 9,115.4 9,122.8

Total (km ) 34.0 42.3 116.9 57.8 0.3 85.1 139.3 6.2 23.2 10.2 2,042.8 9,116.8 22.7 11,697.5 2

GREAT HORNED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 OWL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.1 117.1 45.4 - 621.9 8.0 15.8 8.0 128.1 0.7 - - 980.0

 2 104.5 163.3 - 14.5 113.6 288.2 361.3 0.7 18.0 16.0 - - 1,080.3

 3 - - 250.9 849.3 0.7 3.5 1,662.8 32.9 0.8 75.7 33,965.5 3.3 36,845.5

 4 - - - - - - 23.6 - - 0.0 - 29,970.0 29,993.6

Total (km ) 139.6 280.4 296.3 863.9 736.3 299.8 2,063.5 41.6 146.9 92.3 33,965.5 29,973.3 430.9 69,330.2 2

BARRED OWL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 33.3 113.2 45.1 - 618.0 7.8 15.7 7.5 130.3 0.7 - - 971.6

 2 102.1 160.8 - 14.4 113.4 278.7 358.3 0.6 18.9 15.5 - - 1,062.8

 3 - - 246.2 841.3 0.7 3.5 1,651.9 31.8 0.7 74.4 33,752.9 3.1 36,606.5

 4 - - - - - - 23.0 - - 0.0 - 28,354.4 28,377.4

Total (km ) 135.5 274.0 291.3 855.6 732.1 290.0 2,048.9 39.8 150.0 90.5 33,752.9 28,357.5 367.8 67,386.2 2

LONG-EARED FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

OWL

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 34.8 113.9 45.2 - 620.0 7.6 15.5 8.6 131.1 0.6 - - 977.3

 2 106.2 161.1 - 14.2 113.8 286.9 359.7 0.7 19.2 15.7 - - 1,077.6

 3 - - 249.4 846.7 0.7 3.5 1,658.4 32.2 0.8 75.2 33,855.9 3.2 36,726.0

 4 - - - - - - 23.7 - - 0.0 - 28,963.4 28,987.1
A11 - 29

Total (km ) 141.0 275.0 294.6 861.0 734.4 298.0 2,057.3 41.5 151.1 91.5 33,855.9 28,966.6 390.3 68,158.3 2

SHORT-EARED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 OWL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 3.1 6.9 0.0 - 44.4 0.5 0.4 3.1 12.7 0.0 - - 70.9

 2 26.9 6.2 - 0.5 4.8 35.4 44.1 0.5 1.3 0.6 - - 120.2

 3 - - 11.2 50.4 0.0 0.0 46.7 2.4 0.0 3.4 1,967.9 0.3 2,082.2

 4 - - - - - - 1.5 - - 0.0 - 2,776.9 2,778.4

Total (km ) 30.0 13.1 11.2 50.9 49.2 35.9 92.6 5.9 13.9 3.9 1,967.9 2,777.2 93.5 5,145.3 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SAW-WHET OWL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 33.4 113.1 44.8 - 615.0 7.0 15.5 7.1 127.1 0.6 - - 963.6

 2 99.4 160.1 - 14.3 113.9 266.9 354.3 0.3 18.1 14.2 - - 1,041.4

 3 - - 239.4 834.9 0.7 3.3 1,650.5 31.3 0.5 72.6 33,568.7 3.1 36,404.9

 4 - - - - - - 23.0 - - 0.0 - 24,120.8 24,143.8

Total (km ) 132.8 273.1 284.2 849.2 729.5 277.2 2,043.2 38.8 145.7 87.4 33,568.7 24,123.9 362.6 62,916.2 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 NIGHTHAWK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 6.2 25.8 0.7 - 102.0 2.0 2.1 3.9 31.9 0.0 - - 174.7

 2 42.0 18.5 - 5.1 9.0 83.7 97.7 0.6 7.6 3.5 - - 267.7

 3 - - 24.8 171.8 0.1 0.4 169.0 6.9 0.5 11.9 8,114.2 2.4 8,501.9

 4 - - - - - - 2.8 - - 0.0 - 9,331.9 9,334.7

Total (km ) 48.2 44.3 25.5 176.9 111.1 86.0 271.7 11.4 40.0 15.5 8,114.2 9,334.3 3,316.0 21,595.1 2

WHIP-POOR-WILL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 8.0 15.4 3.7 - 89.1 2.3 1.3 7.0 51.8 0.1 - - 178.7
A11 - 30

 2 58.8 22.6 - 6.7 15.1 126.6 98.2 0.7 10.8 3.9 - - 343.4

 3 - - 16.9 282.4 0.2 0.9 258.0 8.6 0.5 8.7 9,238.9 2.8 9,817.8

 4 - - - - - - 3.5 - - 0.0 - 9,420.8 9,424.2

Total (km ) 66.8 38.0 20.5 289.1 104.3 129.9 361.0 16.3 63.0 12.7 9,238.9 9,423.6 3,135.7 22,899.8 2

CHIMNEY SWIFT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 7.1 16.3 3.4 - 73.6 2.0 2.3 5.9 47.2 0.0 - - 158.0

 2 53.1 19.1 - 6.4 12.5 119.5 107.8 0.6 9.6 4.3 - - 333.0

 3 - - 35.3 180.0 0.2 0.8 232.0 7.7 0.5 17.5 6,562.5 2.3 7,038.8

 4 - - - - - - 2.9 - - 0.0 - 10,033.4 10,036.4

Total (km ) 60.2 35.5 38.7 186.4 86.2 122.4 345.1 14.3 57.3 21.8 6,562.5 10,035.7 3,329.5 20,895.6 2

RUBY-THROATED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 HUMMINGBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.6 115.3 45.1 - 653.9 7.2 16.3 8.8 134.2 0.6 - - 1,016.9

 2 114.5 165.3 - 14.6 117.2 294.3 377.7 0.4 19.8 15.3 - - 1,119.1

 3 - - 247.2 959.1 0.6 3.5 1,743.1 33.1 0.5 79.8 40,000.4 4.0 43,071.3

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 26,180.4 26,204.6

Total (km ) 150.0 280.6 292.3 973.7 771.7 304.9 2,161.2 42.3 154.6 95.8 40,000.4 26,184.4 424.3 71,836.1 2

BELTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 KINGFISHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.6 13.3 3.1 - 48.4 1.7 4.0 2.6 34.2 0.0 - - 112.0

 2 34.5 15.4 - 5.8 9.8 82.1 79.5 0.1 4.7 1.9 - - 233.8

 3 - - 17.9 123.4 0.3 0.8 176.1 4.2 0.1 10.8 4,101.8 1.8 4,437.2

 4 - - - - - - 1.7 - - 0.0 - 4,089.2 4,090.9

Total (km ) 39.1 28.7 21.0 129.3 58.4 84.6 261.3 6.9 39.1 12.7 4,101.8 4,091.0 6,498.3 15,372.3 2 *
A11 - 31

YELLOW-BELLIE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

D FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 SAPSUCKER

Category 1 34.4 114.6 45.1 - 650.1 2.3 16.0 8.3 123.1 0.7 - - 994.4

 2 100.5 165.1 - 15.4 116.4 253.8 377.2 0.5 18.6 12.2 - - 1,059.6

 3 - - 228.1 952.3 0.4 3.5 1,734.8 32.8 0.3 77.4 39,723.3 3.9 42,756.7

 4 - - - - - - 23.5 - - 0.0 - 23,525.9 23,549.4

Total (km ) 134.9 279.7 273.1 967.7 766.9 259.5 2,151.5 41.5 142.0 90.2 39,723.3 23,529.8 149.4 68,509.5 2

DOWNY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOODPECKER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 23.4 65.2 37.1 - 475.1 6.5 13.1 6.8 88.9 0.6 - - 716.7

 2 81.6 98.6 - 13.8 71.7 239.7 265.9 0.3 12.4 12.4 - - 796.4

 3 - - 223.3 738.9 0.5 3.0 1,418.5 26.8 0.4 66.8 29,864.7 2.9 32,345.8

 4 - - - - - - 17.9 - - 0.0 - 22,167.4 22,185.3

Total (km ) 104.9 163.9 260.5 752.7 547.3 249.2 1,715.4 33.9 101.7 79.8 29,864.7 22,170.3 270.9 56,315.1 2

HAIRY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOODPECKER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 33.0 111.1 44.1 - 604.7 6.7 15.0 6.3 118.9 0.6 - - 940.5

 2 92.6 157.3 - 13.9 111.7 259.0 337.9 0.3 16.3 13.9 - - 1,003.0

 3 - - 235.0 816.6 0.6 3.2 1,616.6 30.7 0.5 71.5 32,835.9 3.0 35,613.7

 4 - - - - - - 22.7 - - 0.0 - 23,450.5 23,473.2

Total (km ) 125.6 268.5 279.1 830.5 717.1 269.0 1,992.2 37.3 135.6 86.0 32,835.9 23,453.5 340.3 61,370.7 2

THREE-TOED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOODPECKER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 13.6 0.0 2.3 - 352.7 0.3 6.2 1.7 42.4 0.0 - - 419.2

 2 37.9 72.5 - 5.0 90.8 64.1 166.3 0.0 3.4 3.6 - - 443.5
A11 - 32

 3 - - 49.2 557.3 0.0 0.0 787.1 4.2 0.0 29.9 21,827.4 1.6 23,256.7

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 4,798.4 4,798.4

Total (km ) 51.4 72.5 51.5 562.2 443.5 64.4 959.6 5.9 45.8 33.5 21,827.4 4,800.0 53.7 28,971.5 2

BLACK-BACKED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOODPECKER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 31.6 102.5 4.1 - 489.5 1.8 13.1 0.0 77.4 0.0 - - 720.0

 2 65.9 96.4 - 5.1 104.5 86.2 216.6 0.0 4.2 4.9 - - 583.8

 3 - - 62.2 644.0 0.0 0.0 1,180.6 7.2 0.0 40.7 28,318.8 2.7 30,256.2

 4 - - - - - - 20.4 - - 0.0 - 6,300.3 6,320.8

Total (km ) 97.5 198.8 66.3 649.1 594.0 88.1 1,430.7 7.3 81.6 45.6 28,318.8 6,303.0 55.8 37,936.5 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FLICKER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 34.9 116.0 45.4 - 619.7 7.8 15.4 8.0 126.0 0.6 - - 973.9

 2 102.1 161.6 - 14.5 113.6 284.4 350.7 0.7 17.8 16.3 - - 1,061.7

 3 - - 254.4 844.5 0.7 3.5 1,658.4 33.0 0.8 76.6 33,830.2 3.2 36,705.3

 4 - - - - - - 23.6 - - 0.0 - 29,788.5 29,812.1

Total (km ) 137.0 277.7 299.8 859.0 734.0 295.7 2,048.0 41.8 144.7 93.5 33,830.2 29,791.7 392.4 68,945.4 2

PILEATED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOODPECKER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.5 110.0 44.3 - 610.1 6.8 15.4 6.5 118.8 0.6 - - 945.2

 2 91.6 157.8 - 14.2 111.8 261.9 341.4 0.3 15.5 13.8 - - 1,008.4

 3 - - 237.0 834.0 0.6 3.3 1,635.5 29.9 0.4 72.0 33,025.2 3.0 35,840.8

 4 - - - - - - 22.7 - - 0.0 - 23,245.7 23,268.4

Total (km ) 124.2 267.8 281.3 848.1 722.5 272.0 2,015.0 36.8 134.8 86.4 33,025.2 23,248.7 337.0 61,399.8 2
A11 - 33

OLIVE-SIDED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FLYCATCHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 31.5 103.8 20.9 - 483.6 6.5 13.6 6.4 111.0 0.3 - - 777.6

 2 82.8 128.3 - 12.6 105.3 184.5 279.7 0.2 15.2 11.4 - - 819.9

 3 - - 129.8 663.3 0.6 2.3 1,277.8 28.5 0.4 54.4 29,707.8 3.0 31,867.9

 4 - - - - - - 20.4 - - 0.0 - 18,394.2 18,414.7

Total (km ) 114.3 232.1 150.8 675.9 589.4 193.3 1,591.5 35.2 126.6 66.1 29,707.8 18,397.3 324.3 52,204.4 2

EASTERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WOOD-PEWEE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 25.2 67.5 38.0 - 513.5 6.9 14.1 8.1 100.2 0.6 - - 774.1

 2 95.8 103.4 - 14.3 76.0 260.2 301.1 0.4 15.1 12.5 - - 878.7

 3 - - 224.8 827.9 0.6 3.2 1,499.2 27.9 0.4 70.2 35,072.0 3.6 37,729.7

 4 - - - - - - 18.5 - - 0.0 - 23,310.2 23,328.6

Total (km ) 120.9 170.9 262.8 842.1 590.1 270.2 1,832.8 36.3 115.7 83.3 35,072.0 23,313.8 365.7 63,076.8 2

YELLOW-BELLIE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

D FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 FLYCATCHER

Category 1 31.2 83.6 8.7 - 324.6 1.5 7.3 5.6 73.1 0.0 - - 535.6

 2 81.5 103.5 - 8.5 91.2 122.2 203.6 0.3 10.8 5.2 - - 626.8

 3 - - 59.2 483.2 0.0 1.1 873.9 22.5 0.0 32.7 17,704.9 2.3 19,179.7

 4 - - - - - - 17.3 - - 0.0 - 8,913.0 8,930.3

Total (km ) 112.6 187.1 67.9 491.7 415.8 124.8 1,102.1 28.4 83.9 37.9 17,704.9 8,915.2 125.5 29,397.8 2

ALDER Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FLYCATCHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.7 13.4 3.5 - 55.6 1.8 2.1 5.0 41.1 0.0 - - 128.3

 2 50.8 15.3 - 2.2 12.6 105.0 73.1 0.5 8.7 2.8 - - 271.1
A11 - 34

 3 - - 26.5 154.0 0.2 0.8 198.9 5.7 0.2 15.4 5,821.3 1.1 6,224.1

 4 - - - - - - 2.5 - - 0.0 - 6,719.7 6,722.2

Total (km ) 56.6 28.7 30.1 156.2 68.3 107.6 276.5 11.3 50.1 18.3 5,821.3 6,720.9 200.3 13,546.0 2

WILLOW Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FLYCATCHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.5 41.5 14.1 - 0.0 4.6 0.5 0.1 25.8 0.6 - - 92.9

 2 24.0 9.5 - 0.0 0.0 105.4 44.4 0.2 3.7 3.7 - - 190.9

 3 - - 65.1 8.4 0.4 0.7 84.1 3.9 0.5 5.0 1,198.4 0.7 1,367.1

 4 - - - - - - 8.0 - - 0.0 - 9,437.2 9,445.3

Total (km ) 29.5 51.0 79.2 8.4 0.4 110.7 137.0 4.2 30.1 9.4 1,198.4 9,437.9 51.9 11,148.0 2

LEAST Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FLYCATCHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.4 35.5 30.5 - 301.1 4.2 8.2 3.8 52.1 0.6 - - 440.3

 2 37.1 58.7 - 6.7 25.3 151.3 172.6 0.6 9.7 7.7 - - 469.7

 3 - - 172.1 391.2 0.3 2.0 797.7 10.7 0.5 41.5 16,736.4 1.3 18,153.7

 4 - - - - - - 6.6 - - 0.0 - 17,705.6 17,712.2

Total (km ) 41.5 94.2 202.6 397.9 326.7 157.5 985.2 15.0 62.3 49.7 16,736.4 17,706.8 157.7 36,933.6 2

EASTERN PHOEBE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 37.3 133.4 45.7 - 685.0 8.4 17.3 9.9 143.6 0.7 - - 1,081.2

 2 123.2 171.8 - 15.1 118.4 314.0 396.9 0.8 21.9 17.0 - - 1,179.2

 3 - - 260.4 978.4 0.7 3.7 1,769.0 35.2 0.9 82.5 40,717.3 4.1 43,852.2

 4 - - - - - - 25.1 - - 0.0 - 31,975.1 32,000.2

Total (km ) 160.5 305.2 306.1 993.6 804.1 326.1 2,208.3 45.9 166.4 100.1 40,717.3 31,979.3 513.5 78,626.3 2
A11 - 35

GREAT CRESTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 FLYCATCHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 23.6 65.9 34.5 - 470.1 6.5 4.1 4.7 78.4 0.6 - - 688.4

 2 81.5 96.4 - 14.0 69.5 234.0 284.3 0.3 11.6 11.3 - - 802.8

 3 - - 216.7 656.3 0.5 2.7 1,323.2 25.4 0.4 57.2 24,709.1 2.5 26,994.1

 4 - - - - - - 18.1 - - 0.0 - 20,966.1 20,984.2

Total (km ) 105.1 162.2 251.2 670.3 540.0 243.2 1,629.7 30.3 90.5 69.2 24,709.1 20,968.6 237.3 49,706.7 2

EASTERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 KINGBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 8.1 18.5 4.1 - 104.7 2.2 3.1 7.1 50.3 0.1 - - 198.1

 2 63.1 25.4 - 3.0 15.2 129.6 95.1 0.7 10.6 4.5 - - 347.1

 3 - - 38.0 284.9 0.2 0.9 318.8 9.1 0.4 22.4 13,218.7 2.2 13,895.7

 4 - - - - - - 3.7 - - 0.0 - 11,247.4 11,251.1

Total (km ) 71.2 43.9 42.1 287.9 120.1 132.7 420.7 16.9 61.3 26.9 13,218.7 11,249.6 235.5 25,927.6 2

HORNED LARK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.1 5.8 0.5 - 24.6 0.9 0.3 1.9 7.8 0.0 - - 44.0

 2 10.6 5.4 - 0.3 0.3 23.5 17.7 0.4 1.6 2.0 - - 61.8

 3 - - 12.7 31.0 0.1 0.1 32.2 2.4 0.3 4.4 1,286.5 0.2 1,370.0

 4 - - - - - - 1.0 - - 0.0 - 6,148.7 6,149.7

Total (km ) 12.7 11.2 13.2 31.3 25.1 24.5 51.2 4.7 9.7 6.4 1,286.5 6,148.9 74.6 7,700.1 2

PURPLE MARTIN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.5 12.7 0.0 - 0.0 1.4 0.8 2.2 11.1 0.0 - - 32.7

 2 21.5 5.3 - 5.5 0.0 45.8 9.7 0.4 3.4 2.9 - - 94.5

 3 - - 3.0 52.3 0.0 0.2 38.0 4.7 0.5 4.2 1,285.0 1.2 1,389.1
A11 - 36

 4 - - - - - - 2.4 - - 0.0 - 6,785.1 6,787.5

Total (km ) 26.0 18.0 3.1 57.9 0.0 47.4 50.8 7.3 14.9 7.1 1,285.0 6,786.3 1,072.5 9,376.3 2

TREE SWALLOW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 33.7 114.7 42.8 - 602.1 7.9 15.8 5.3 113.8 0.6 - - 936.8

 2 81.1 162.1 - 16.7 107.0 231.9 356.3 0.6 15.8 15.0 - - 986.6

 3 - - 237.9 787.2 0.7 3.2 1,568.8 31.3 0.9 66.0 31,267.7 3.8 33,967.4

 4 - - - - - - 23.6 - - 0.0 - 28,752.1 28,775.7

Total (km ) 114.8 276.9 280.7 803.9 709.8 242.9 1,964.5 37.3 130.6 81.6 31,267.7 28,755.9 2,152.1 66,818.6 2

N. ROUGH-WING. Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SWALLOW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.1 26.9 0.8 - 0.0 1.5 0.6 3.5 19.7 0.0 - - 58.1

 2 46.8 13.6 - 3.4 0.0 64.7 29.3 0.6 7.2 2.9 - - 168.5

 3 - - 8.0 67.1 0.1 0.4 84.6 5.2 0.4 5.4 1,716.4 1.0 1,888.7

 4 - - - - - - 2.6 - - 0.0 - 7,033.6 7,035.6

Total (km ) 51.9 40.5 8.7 70.6 0.1 66.6 117.2 9.2 27.3 8.4 1,716.4 7,034.6 2,109.5 11,260.5 2 *

BANK SWALLOW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.9 25.8 0.9 - 65.7 1.9 1.6 2.2 20.5 0.0 - - 123.6

 2 21.4 17.5 - 5.0 5.8 49.4 59.8 0.5 4.6 2.9 - - 166.8

 3 - - 20.1 88.5 0.1 0.4 115.0 5.3 0.5 7.1 3,516.5 1.9 3,755.4

 4 - - - - - - 2.5 - - 0.0 - 8,346.0 8,348.5

Total (km ) 26.3 43.3 21.0 93.5 71.7 51.6 178.9 8.0 25.6 10.0 3,516.5 8,348.0 2,062.8 14,457.1 2

CLIFF SWALLOW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other
A11 - 37

Category 1 5.4 13.1 0.5 - 36.7 1.7 1.7 3.4 27.6 0.0 - - 90.2

 2 38.6 14.3 - 4.4 6.3 76.8 85.5 0.6 7.1 2.6 - - 236.3

 3 - - 17.8 91.4 0.1 0.3 108.7 5.6 0.5 6.8 3,059.2 1.7 3,292.1

 4 - - - - - - 2.4 - - 0.0 - 8,083.6 8,086.0

Total (km ) 44.0 27.5 18.3 95.8 43.1 78.8 198.2 9.6 35.2 9.5 3,059.2 8,085.3 843.5 12,548.1 2

BARN SWALLOW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.2 10.7 0.6 - 28.4 1.7 1.5 2.0 18.2 0.0 - - 67.3

 2 17.5 14.0 - 5.0 3.8 39.7 53.6 0.5 4.1 3.1 - - 141.1

 3 - - 20.1 71.3 0.1 0.3 89.2 4.6 0.5 6.7 2,808.1 1.9 3,002.7

 4 - - - - - - 1.9 - - 0.0 - 8,017.5 8,019.4

Total (km ) 21.6 24.7 20.7 76.3 32.3 41.7 146.2 7.1 22.7 9.8 2,808.1 8,019.4 3,404.2 14,634.7 2

GRAY JAY FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 29.5 75.0 0.8 - 283.6 1.6 6.9 0.0 60.7 0.0 - - 458.1

 2 48.9 50.4 - 0.2 86.8 68.2 146.3 0.0 4.0 3.2 - - 408.1

 3 - - 38.0 374.9 0.0 0.0 677.8 3.7 0.0 22.8 14,831.0 1.6 15,949.9

 4 - - - - - - 16.9 - - 0.0 - 4,102.7 4,119.5

Total (km ) 78.4 125.4 38.8 375.1 370.4 69.8 847.9 3.8 64.7 26.0 14,831.0 4,104.2 42.5 20,978.1 2

BLUE JAY FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 33.7 111.7 44.2 - 629.2 7.0 15.9 7.2 123.7 0.6 - - 973.1

 2 97.7 160.0 - 14.2 112.4 268.1 348.7 0.3 16.1 14.8 - - 1,032.3

 3 - - 241.4 910.0 0.6 3.3 1,677.6 31.5 0.4 76.9 37,908.2 3.7 40,853.6

 4 - - - - - - 23.0 - - 0.0 - 24,878.7 24,901.7

Total (km ) 131.4 271.7 285.5 924.2 742.2 278.3 2,065.1 39.0 140.2 92.3 37,908.2 24,882.4 351.2 68,111.8 2
A11 - 38

AMERICAN CROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.6 119.1 45.7 - 661.4 8.1 16.4 10.0 139.3 0.7 - - 1,037.2

 2 119.1 167.9 - 15.0 117.7 309.2 385.5 0.8 21.1 16.9 - - 1,153.2

 3 - - 259.9 974.7 0.7 3.7 1,761.8 35.1 0.9 82.2 40,519.9 4.1 43,642.7

 4 - - - - - - 24.8 - - 0.0 - 31,801.8 31,826.6

Total (km ) 155.7 287.0 305.6 989.6 779.7 321.0 2,188.5 45.8 161.3 99.8 40,519.9 31,805.9 455.4 78,115.2 2

COMMON RAVEN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.2 130.8 44.8 - 671.2 7.9 16.4 9.9 137.6 0.6 - - 1,055.5

 2 117.5 166.5 - 14.5 116.8 303.5 388.5 0.8 21.1 16.4 - - 1,145.6

 3 - - 252.1 958.8 0.7 3.5 1,730.6 34.5 0.8 80.0 39,888.3 4.1 42,953.3

 4 - - - - - - 24.2 - - 0.0 - 30,955.0 30,979.2

Total (km ) 153.7 297.3 296.9 973.2 788.7 315.0 2,159.7 45.2 159.5 97.1 39,888.3 30,959.0 478.0 76,611.6 2

BLACK-CAPPED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CHICKADEE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 33.9 112.3 44.2 - 631.4 7.0 16.1 8.0 129.6 0.6 - - 983.1

 2 103.3 160.6 - 14.2 113.5 272.0 360.1 0.4 17.8 14.8 - - 1,056.6

 3 - - 241.9 922.3 0.6 3.3 1,691.2 31.9 0.4 77.3 38,371.5 3.8 41,344.2

 4 - - - - - - 23.2 - - 0.0 - 24,988.0 25,011.2

Total (km ) 137.2 272.9 286.2 936.5 745.5 282.3 2,090.6 40.3 147.9 92.7 38,371.5 24,991.8 359.5 68,754.6 2

BOREAL Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CHICKADEE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 31.4 100.4 0.0 - 459.0 1.5 12.5 0.0 76.1 0.0 - - 681.0

 2 55.1 81.5 - 2.0 104.7 96.3 192.0 0.0 5.0 4.7 - - 541.2
A11 - 39

 3 - - 52.3 527.8 0.0 0.0 1,069.5 3.1 0.0 36.9 21,227.5 2.0 22,919.1

 4 - - - - - - 20.1 - - 0.0 - 5,471.6 5,491.8

Total (km ) 86.5 181.9 52.3 529.8 563.6 97.9 1,294.1 3.1 81.1 41.6 21,227.5 5,473.7 83.5 29,716.5 2

TUFTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TITMOUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.5 101.6 6.4 - 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 40.8 0.6 - - 156.4

 2 9.0 35.4 - 0.0 0.0 115.0 35.7 0.1 8.9 6.7 - - 210.9

 3 - - 37.1 0.0 0.6 2.3 46.0 6.9 0.4 10.2 507.2 0.1 610.9

 4 - - - - - - 3.3 - - 0.0 - 11,637.1 11,640.4

Total (km ) 9.4 137.0 43.5 0.0 0.6 122.4 85.9 7.5 50.2 17.6 507.2 11,637.2 39.6 12,658.1 2

RED-BREASTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 NUTHATCH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.7 104.9 20.6 - 445.8 6.1 12.6 4.9 98.5 0.3 - - 724.5

 2 74.2 123.8 - 12.0 101.4 171.7 246.3 0.1 11.7 10.8 - - 751.9

 3 - - 124.4 561.6 0.6 2.2 1,194.0 26.9 0.4 49.4 23,302.1 2.3 25,263.9

 4 - - - - - - 19.9 - - 0.0 - 17,225.0 17,245.0

Total (km ) 104.9 228.6 145.1 573.6 547.8 180.0 1,472.8 32.0 110.6 60.4 23,302.1 17,227.4 264.2 44,249.4 2

WHITE-BREASTE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

D FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 NUTHATCH

Category 1 21.3 61.4 33.8 - 444.0 6.2 12.1 3.3 65.0 0.6 - - 647.7

 2 62.8 91.1 - 12.8 64.9 198.1 238.1 0.2 8.8 10.6 - - 687.3

 3 - - 205.8 604.5 0.5 2.5 1,256.8 23.5 0.4 53.5 24,007.4 2.3 26,157.2

 4 - - - - - - 16.8 - - 0.0 - 19,416.0 19,432.8

Total (km ) 84.1 152.5 239.6 617.3 509.4 206.8 1,523.7 26.9 74.2 64.7 24,007.4 19,418.2 229.2 47,154.2 2
A11 - 40

BROWN CREEPER Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.5 112.5 44.9 - 610.7 6.8 15.2 5.9 118.3 0.6 - - 947.4

 2 88.8 156.5 - 14.2 113.1 260.7 341.0 0.3 15.1 13.7 - - 1,003.5

 3 - - 238.0 814.0 0.6 3.5 1,625.7 30.2 0.5 70.9 32,049.7 3.0 34,836.1

 4 - - - - - - 22.5 - - 0.0 - 23,493.4 23,515.9

Total (km ) 121.3 268.9 282.9 828.2 724.5 270.9 2,004.4 36.4 133.9 85.3 32,049.7 23,496.4 348.5 60,651.5 2

HOUSE WREN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 24.0 67.0 36.0 - 15.2 7.5 0.6 5.5 59.0 0.7 - - 215.4

 2 78.7 98.5 - 14.8 0.1 192.9 161.7 0.6 12.6 10.1 - - 569.9

 3 - - 199.7 692.2 0.5 2.9 869.1 29.4 0.8 27.3 15,848.0 3.2 17,673.1

 4 - - - - - - 18.7 - - 0.0 - 23,798.5 23,817.3

Total (km ) 102.7 165.5 235.7 707.0 15.8 203.3 1,050.1 35.6 72.3 38.1 15,848.0 23,801.7 90.1 42,365.8 2

WINTER WREN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 33.7 107.4 21.1 - 503.8 6.7 13.8 8.0 119.7 0.3 - - 814.5

 2 104.2 134.7 - 13.1 108.2 222.0 298.0 0.4 17.4 11.9 - - 910.0

 3 - - 135.7 741.8 0.6 2.4 1,354.9 30.7 0.5 58.8 32,443.5 3.5 34,772.3

 4 - - - - - - 21.9 - - 0.0 - 19,955.4 19,977.3

Total (km ) 137.9 242.1 156.9 754.9 612.6 231.1 1,688.7 39.1 137.6 71.1 32,443.5 19,958.8 367.3 56,841.5 2

MARSH WREN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 1.6 3.7 0.0 - 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 7.2 0.0 - - 14.3

 2 28.5 2.3 - 0.2 0.0 27.1 16.7 0.1 1.1 0.4 - - 76.4

 3 - - 0.7 11.2 0.0 0.1 19.0 1.2 0.0 1.1 333.9 0.2 367.3
A11 - 41

 4 - - - - - - 1.1 - - 0.0 - 620.7 621.9

Total (km ) 30.1 6.0 0.7 11.4 0.0 27.4 36.8 2.9 8.3 1.4 333.9 621.0 31.1 1,111.1 2

SEDGE WREN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 1.5 1.8 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.0 - - 5.7

 2 11.9 0.7 - 0.0 0.0 13.6 11.8 0.0 0.3 0.1 - - 38.2

 3 - - 0.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.3 0.0 0.8 204.6 0.1 231.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.8 - - 0.0 - 274.5 275.3

Total (km ) 13.3 2.4 0.5 12.2 0.0 13.6 25.2 1.0 1.9 0.9 204.6 274.6 16.6 566.9 2

CAROLINA WREN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 - - 5.2

 2 3.9 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.9 - - 7.7

 3 - - 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 728.8 728.8

Total (km ) 3.9 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.5 728.8 1.0 749.5 2

GOLD.-CROWNED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 KINGLET FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 29.7 80.7 11.9 - 310.2 1.7 7.0 4.4 68.7 0.0 - - 514.4

 2 63.1 100.0 - 7.3 87.5 103.3 182.6 0.2 8.2 6.3 - - 558.4

 3 - - 60.5 445.9 0.1 1.3 834.3 21.3 0.1 31.7 16,595.0 1.9 17,992.1

 4 - - - - - - 16.6 - - 0.0 - 9,514.4 9,531.1

Total (km ) 92.8 180.7 72.4 453.2 397.9 106.3 1,040.5 26.0 77.0 38.0 16,595.0 9,516.4 64.6 28,660.5 2

RUBY-CROWNED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 KINGLET FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 42

Category 1 29.9 102.9 5.5 - 447.9 1.6 12.3 4.6 77.6 0.0 - - 682.3

 2 65.7 121.1 - 12.8 101.6 120.9 228.6 0.2 8.6 6.8 - - 666.3

 3 - - 74.0 564.7 0.0 1.7 1,189.4 25.7 0.0 46.7 23,015.3 2.3 24,919.8

 4 - - - - - - 19.5 - - 0.0 - 11,784.9 11,804.4

Total (km ) 95.6 224.0 79.5 577.5 549.5 124.2 1,449.9 30.5 86.2 53.5 23,015.3 11,787.2 71.1 38,143.9 2

BLUE-GRAY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GNATCATCHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 10.5 - 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 - - 27.4

 2 4.8 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 48.0 6.2 0.0 1.3 2.3 - - 62.6

 3 - - 50.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.8 1.2 0.1 0.7 137.5 0.1 199.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 2,851.0 2,851.0

Total (km ) 4.8 0.0 60.6 0.0 0.1 52.4 16.0 1.2 13.9 2.9 137.5 2,851.1 6.5 3,147.0 2

EASTERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BLUEBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 6.1 12.3 3.5 - 70.8 1.8 1.8 5.3 41.5 0.0 - - 143.1

 2 53.0 12.9 - 2.4 13.6 107.6 70.9 0.5 8.6 3.9 - - 273.4

 3 - - 31.2 218.8 0.2 0.8 235.4 7.4 0.3 19.0 10,318.1 1.8 10,833.0

 4 - - - - - - 2.6 - - 0.0 - 9,157.6 9,160.2

Total (km ) 59.1 25.2 34.7 221.3 84.7 110.2 310.6 13.2 50.4 23.0 10,318.1 9,159.4 161.2 20,570.9 2

VEERY FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 23.7 66.1 37.9 - 478.0 6.3 13.3 7.0 93.3 0.6 - - 726.2

 2 85.4 98.2 - 13.7 73.0 241.8 276.5 0.3 12.7 11.6 - - 813.3

 3 - - 219.9 731.2 0.5 3.1 1,422.8 26.2 0.4 64.6 28,889.2 2.8 31,360.8

 4 - - - - - - 17.8 - - 0.0 - 21,603.3 21,621.0

Total (km ) 109.1 164.2 257.8 744.9 551.5 251.3 1,730.4 33.5 106.4 76.9 28,889.2 21,606.0 276.1 54,797.3 2
A11 - 43

BICKNELL'S Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 THRUSH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 27.4

 2 0.0 15.3 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 33.7

 3 - - 2.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.9 0.0 146.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.5 0.5

Total (km ) 0.0 15.3 2.5 1.8 27.5 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.9 0.5 0.0 208.0 2

SWAINSON'S Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 THRUSH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.2 109.2 8.1 - 494.5 1.7 13.7 4.8 87.7 0.0 - - 751.9

 2 85.9 121.7 - 12.5 106.9 122.0 258.5 0.2 8.8 5.9 - - 722.3

 3 - - 81.2 706.2 0.0 0.0 1,285.6 24.0 0.0 47.0 29,887.2 3.5 32,034.7

 4 - - - - - - 20.6 - - 0.0 - 8,777.1 8,797.6

Total (km ) 118.1 230.9 89.3 718.6 601.4 123.7 1,578.4 28.9 96.5 52.9 29,887.2 8,780.5 91.1 42,397.7 2

HERMIT THRUSH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 32.9 110.8 21.1 - 493.3 7.4 13.9 8.2 120.2 0.3 - - 808.2

 2 101.3 134.1 - 13.8 105.9 233.4 292.1 0.6 17.5 13.5 - - 912.3

 3 - - 143.5 728.3 0.6 2.6 1,337.0 31.6 0.7 59.8 31,584.1 3.6 33,891.9

 4 - - - - - - 21.2 - - 0.0 - 24,521.4 24,542.6

Total (km ) 134.3 244.9 164.6 742.1 599.8 243.4 1,664.3 40.4 138.5 73.7 31,584.1 24,525.0 343.2 60,498.1 2

WOOD THRUSH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 23.9 65.0 37.4 - 499.3 6.5 13.7 6.9 91.4 0.6 - - 744.7

 2 81.3 98.9 - 13.9 74.4 243.2 274.5 0.3 11.6 12.0 - - 810.1
A11 - 44

 3 - - 221.4 800.9 0.5 3.1 1,463.9 27.0 0.4 68.2 33,589.0 3.5 36,177.8

 4 - - - - - - 17.9 - - 0.0 - 22,301.3 22,319.3

Total (km ) 105.2 163.8 258.8 814.7 574.2 252.8 1,770.0 34.2 103.4 80.8 33,589.0 22,304.8 279.1 60,330.9 2

AMERICAN ROBIN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 35.7 117.7 45.5 - 654.4 8.1 16.5 9.9 137.7 0.7 - - 1,026.1

 2 114.8 166.9 - 15.0 115.9 300.9 376.3 0.8 20.7 16.9 - - 1,128.4

 3 - - 258.9 962.2 0.7 3.6 1,745.4 34.7 0.8 82.1 40,264.9 4.0 43,357.4

 4 - - - - - - 24.3 - - 0.0 - 31,598.9 31,623.2

Total (km ) 150.5 284.6 304.4 977.2 770.9 312.6 2,162.5 45.4 159.3 99.8 40,264.9 31,602.9 417.7 77,552.7 2

GRAY CATBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 35.3 117.2 45.7 - 652.7 7.8 16.3 9.5 136.9 0.7 - - 1,022.0

 2 110.4 166.4 - 14.6 116.1 291.3 374.6 0.8 20.5 16.8 - - 1,111.5

 3 - - 257.7 953.0 0.6 3.6 1,736.9 34.7 0.8 80.9 40,002.3 3.9 43,074.4

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 31,300.9 31,325.0

Total (km ) 145.7 283.6 303.3 967.7 769.4 302.7 2,151.9 45.0 158.2 98.4 40,002.3 31,304.8 398.8 76,931.7 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MOCKINGBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.9 9.4 1.0 - 25.6 1.2 0.2 3.9 18.6 0.0 - - 64.9

 2 33.8 15.8 - 1.4 0.3 66.5 21.3 0.6 4.5 2.9 - - 147.2

 3 - - 10.2 130.5 0.0 0.2 109.9 6.2 0.4 7.1 4,500.1 1.5 4,766.1

 4 - - - - - - 2.2 - - 0.0 - 7,938.6 7,940.8

Total (km ) 38.7 25.2 11.1 131.9 25.9 68.0 133.7 10.7 23.5 10.1 4,500.1 7,940.1 48.8 12,967.9 2
A11 - 45

BROWN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 THRASHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.3 8.5 0.9 - 2.7 1.2 0.2 3.6 17.2 0.0 - - 38.7

 2 31.8 12.6 - 1.1 0.0 58.9 18.2 0.6 4.8 2.7 - - 130.7

 3 - - 8.4 159.8 0.0 0.2 103.6 5.7 0.4 7.6 4,569.1 1.3 4,856.1

 4 - - - - - - 2.1 - - 0.0 - 7,284.0 7,286.2

Total (km ) 36.1 21.1 9.2 160.9 2.7 60.4 124.1 9.9 22.4 10.4 4,569.1 7,285.3 48.1 12,359.8 2

AMERICAN PIPIT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 9.8

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0

Total (km ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 2

CEDAR WAXWING FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 34.9 114.2 42.6 - 641.4 7.6 15.6 7.2 120.5 0.6 - - 984.7

 2 104.1 164.6 - 13.3 110.8 265.6 364.3 0.7 18.4 15.5 - - 1,057.3

 3 - - 242.0 897.6 0.6 3.1 1,650.2 32.8 0.8 73.5 37,764.2 3.5 40,668.3

 4 - - - - - - 24.5 - - 0.0 - 29,169.5 29,194.1

Total (km ) 139.0 278.8 284.6 910.9 752.8 276.3 2,054.6 40.6 139.7 89.7 37,764.2 29,173.1 410.9 72,315.3 2

BLUE-HEADED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 VIREO FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.8 109.8 44.2 - 619.6 6.9 15.8 6.7 118.7 0.6 - - 955.2

 2 86.5 158.1 - 14.1 110.3 246.6 336.7 0.2 15.0 14.1 - - 981.7

 3 - - 234.8 890.4 0.6 3.3 1,656.1 30.3 0.4 74.1 37,388.5 3.5 40,281.9
A11 - 46

 4 - - - - - - 22.6 - - 0.0 - 24,051.9 24,074.5

Total (km ) 119.3 267.9 279.0 904.4 730.5 256.7 2,031.2 37.2 134.2 88.9 37,388.5 24,055.3 312.0 66,605.4 2

YELLOW-THROAT Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

. FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 VIREO

Category 1 0.0 0.0 32.6 - 0.0 4.6 0.1 0.1 15.8 0.6 - - 53.8

 2 4.7 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 53.3 27.1 0.0 2.6 3.4 - - 91.1

 3 - - 132.9 0.0 0.4 0.3 24.2 1.3 0.4 3.0 338.1 0.1 500.7

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 5,287.8 5,287.8

Total (km ) 4.7 0.0 165.5 0.0 0.4 58.2 51.4 1.5 18.8 7.0 338.1 5,287.8 14.8 5,948.1 2

WARBLING VIREO FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.3 33.6 31.3 - 339.3 3.7 9.1 2.5 45.4 0.6 - - 469.6

 2 33.5 63.4 - 7.4 27.5 148.7 175.3 0.2 7.1 7.2 - - 470.2

 3 - - 171.2 474.7 0.3 2.1 876.5 10.6 0.1 45.1 21,549.6 2.0 23,132.2

 4 - - - - - - 6.1 - - 0.0 - 14,080.9 14,087.0

Total (km ) 37.8 97.0 202.5 482.1 367.0 154.4 1,066.9 13.3 52.6 52.9 21,549.6 14,082.9 143.8 38,302.8 2

PHILADELPHIA Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 VIREO FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 2.2 0.0 12.6 - 487.4 0.0 12.2 0.5 42.0 0.0 - - 556.9

 2 9.4 84.9 - 6.4 68.4 75.3 213.4 0.0 2.0 5.0 - - 464.8

 3 - - 109.1 655.2 0.0 0.0 1,169.7 1.7 0.0 46.5 27,666.8 1.3 29,650.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 6,345.4 6,345.4

Total (km ) 11.6 84.9 121.7 661.6 555.8 75.3 1,395.3 2.2 44.1 51.5 27,666.8 6,346.7 61.3 37,078.7 2
A11 - 47

RED-EYED VIREO Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 24.3 65.2 37.5 - 499.2 6.6 13.7 6.9 91.5 0.6 - - 745.5

 2 83.8 99.8 - 14.0 74.3 244.2 274.8 0.3 11.6 12.5 - - 815.4

 3 - - 225.4 801.1 0.5 3.1 1,465.2 27.2 0.4 69.6 33,645.0 3.5 36,240.9

 4 - - - - - - 18.0 - - 0.0 - 22,790.0 22,808.0

Total (km ) 108.1 165.0 262.8 815.1 574.1 253.8 1,771.6 34.4 103.5 82.7 33,645.0 22,793.5 279.9 60,889.6 2

BLUE-WINGED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.4

 2 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 - - 0.5

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 68.5 68.5

Total (km ) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 68.5 0.1 69.5 2

TENNESSEE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.3 87.3 27.4 - 655.3 2.4 15.7 4.3 98.4 0.0 - - 926.1

 2 92.6 150.6 - 12.6 116.8 155.2 340.5 0.1 7.3 7.1 - - 882.8

 3 - - 172.8 955.6 0.0 0.3 1,683.6 14.6 0.0 64.2 39,082.3 3.6 41,977.1

 4 - - - - - - 24.0 - - 0.0 - 13,004.9 13,028.9

Total (km ) 127.9 238.0 200.2 968.2 772.1 158.0 2,063.8 18.9 105.7 71.4 39,082.3 13,008.5 113.0 56,927.9 2

NASHVILLE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 34.7 117.2 45.7 - 655.2 7.9 16.3 8.7 136.0 0.7 - - 1,022.4

 2 109.0 166.8 - 14.8 116.5 289.8 375.9 0.7 20.3 16.1 - - 1,110.0

 3 - - 250.4 955.1 0.6 3.6 1,742.2 34.4 0.8 79.8 40,126.9 3.9 43,197.6
A11 - 48

 4 - - - - - - 23.6 - - 0.0 - 30,170.6 30,194.1

Total (km ) 143.7 284.0 296.0 969.9 772.4 301.3 2,157.9 43.8 157.1 96.6 40,126.9 30,174.5 400.4 75,924.5 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 PARULA FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.6 112.5 24.8 - 610.0 4.0 14.8 6.5 108.9 0.4 - - 914.7

 2 90.5 155.2 - 14.7 113.4 201.4 341.5 0.3 14.2 11.2 - - 942.3

 3 - - 151.6 818.9 0.4 3.1 1,615.1 29.1 0.1 68.0 31,748.7 2.9 34,437.9

 4 - - - - - - 22.6 - - 0.0 - 18,099.0 18,121.6

Total (km ) 123.1 267.8 176.4 833.6 723.8 208.4 1,994.0 35.9 123.2 79.7 31,748.7 18,101.9 123.0 54,539.5 2

YELLOW Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.7 8.3 0.5 - 65.7 0.7 1.3 3.7 23.1 0.0 - - 108.0

 2 39.8 14.9 - 1.3 7.6 68.6 56.2 0.3 6.3 2.1 - - 197.0

 3 - - 16.0 187.5 0.0 0.2 179.4 5.4 0.1 12.2 9,616.4 1.4 10,018.5

 4 - - - - - - 2.2 - - 0.0 - 4,275.1 4,277.4

Total (km ) 44.5 23.2 16.6 188.8 73.3 69.4 239.0 9.3 29.4 14.3 9,616.4 4,276.5 131.8 14,732.6 2

CHESTNUT-SIDED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 6.0 13.0 23.6 - 207.0 1.1 3.6 4.1 36.2 0.3 - - 295.0

 2 45.2 43.8 - 2.8 15.1 130.8 130.6 0.3 8.4 4.7 - - 381.6

 3 - - 120.6 391.7 0.1 1.1 546.5 7.1 0.1 30.6 16,723.5 1.8 17,823.2

 4 - - - - - - 4.2 - - 0.0 - 9,342.7 9,346.9

Total (km ) 51.2 56.8 144.3 394.5 222.2 133.0 684.9 11.5 44.7 35.6 16,723.5 9,344.4 166.2 28,012.9 2

MAGNOLIA Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 49

Category 1 33.0 108.0 20.9 - 491.1 6.5 13.8 7.7 117.0 0.3 - - 798.2

 2 99.1 131.9 - 12.7 106.2 210.7 286.1 0.3 15.6 11.8 - - 874.5

 3 - - 132.9 719.5 0.6 2.4 1,326.9 30.1 0.4 58.0 31,292.2 3.4 33,566.3

 4 - - - - - - 21.3 - - 0.0 - 19,718.1 19,739.4

Total (km ) 132.1 239.9 153.8 732.2 597.9 219.6 1,648.0 38.2 133.0 70.1 31,292.2 19,721.5 329.3 55,307.6 2

CAPE MAY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.5 71.1 0.0 - 312.8 1.6 7.1 0.4 56.1 0.0 - - 479.5

 2 58.1 85.7 - 3.8 86.2 73.6 144.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 - - 458.5

 3 - - 37.2 473.3 0.0 0.0 799.6 5.9 0.0 24.0 17,253.0 1.7 18,594.7

 4 - - - - - - 16.1 - - 0.0 - 4,783.2 4,799.3

Total (km ) 88.6 156.8 37.2 477.1 399.0 75.2 967.3 6.2 59.1 27.5 17,253.0 4,784.9 44.4 24,376.4 2

BLACK-THROAT. Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BLUE WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 22.8 64.1 37.7 - 467.4 6.2 12.8 5.4 83.3 0.6 - - 700.4

 2 75.9 93.8 - 13.2 72.1 229.1 258.7 0.2 10.3 11.3 - - 764.6

 3 - - 217.9 686.2 0.5 3.1 1,377.1 25.1 0.4 62.5 27,048.2 2.7 29,423.8

 4 - - - - - - 17.2 - - 0.0 - 20,836.1 20,853.3

Total (km ) 98.7 158.0 255.7 699.4 540.0 238.4 1,665.7 30.7 94.0 74.4 27,048.2 20,838.8 254.7 51,996.7 2

YELLOW-RUMPED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.2 105.7 20.4 - 448.2 6.4 13.0 5.8 100.9 0.3 - - 730.9

 2 75.1 125.2 - 13.2 100.1 188.6 251.1 0.2 13.2 11.9 - - 778.6

 3 - - 132.9 600.0 0.6 2.3 1,222.2 27.7 0.4 52.5 24,860.3 2.5 26,901.4

 4 - - - - - - 20.1 - - 0.0 - 18,355.2 18,375.3

Total (km ) 105.3 230.9 153.3 613.3 548.9 197.3 1,506.4 33.7 114.6 64.6 24,860.3 18,357.7 268.9 47,055.1 2
A11 - 50

BLACK-THROAT. Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GREEN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

WARBLER

Category 1 32.3 110.0 43.6 - 593.2 6.7 14.9 5.8 114.8 0.6 - - 921.9

 2 88.9 152.5 - 13.6 109.9 253.6 330.2 0.2 14.6 13.5 - - 977.1

 3 - - 231.8 786.3 0.6 3.3 1,577.1 29.4 0.4 69.2 30,989.9 2.9 33,690.9

 4 - - - - - - 22.2 - - 0.0 - 22,605.0 22,627.3

Total (km ) 121.3 262.5 275.5 799.9 703.7 263.5 1,944.4 35.4 129.9 83.3 30,989.9 22,608.0 324.2 58,541.3 2

BLACKBURNIAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.7 106.0 43.5 - 582.2 6.4 14.8 5.2 109.5 0.6 - - 898.9

 2 73.8 149.1 - 13.4 107.2 229.8 316.5 0.1 13.4 13.1 - - 916.4

 3 - - 228.5 757.9 0.6 3.2 1,545.4 27.5 0.4 66.9 30,111.5 2.6 32,744.4

 4 - - - - - - 21.7 - - 0.0 - 21,373.6 21,395.3

Total (km ) 104.5 255.1 272.0 771.3 690.0 239.4 1,898.4 32.8 123.3 80.6 30,111.5 21,376.2 280.6 56,235.6 2

PINE WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 28.9 80.9 13.4 - 0.0 3.4 2.0 4.3 54.5 0.1 - - 187.4

 2 64.7 85.2 - 6.6 0.0 89.4 82.7 0.2 8.1 6.7 - - 343.6

 3 - - 52.3 372.6 0.3 1.4 403.5 21.7 0.3 10.8 6,295.6 1.7 7,160.2

 4 - - - - - - 16.3 - - 0.0 - 9,577.1 9,593.4

Total (km ) 93.6 166.1 65.7 379.3 0.3 94.2 504.6 26.2 62.8 17.6 6,295.6 9,578.7 38.8 17,323.3 2

PRAIRIE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 - - 9.3
A11 - 51

 2 3.9 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 12.3 3.1 0.0 0.7 1.9 - - 21.9

 3 - - 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 14.6 0.0 22.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,592.9 1,592.9

Total (km ) 3.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 15.2 4.2 0.4 7.2 2.1 14.6 1,592.9 1.5 1,647.8 2

PALM WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 3.0 3.8 0.0 - 33.3 0.1 0.0 3.5 23.7 0.0 - - 67.5

 2 28.9 4.2 - 0.9 9.7 50.2 39.0 0.2 4.9 0.2 - - 138.3

 3 - - 4.2 109.1 0.0 0.0 116.7 3.0 0.0 3.5 3,917.0 0.5 4,154.0

 4 - - - - - - 1.3 - - 0.0 - 1,249.3 1,250.6

Total (km ) 32.0 8.1 4.2 110.1 42.9 50.4 157.0 6.7 28.6 3.7 3,917.0 1,249.8 40.3 5,650.7 2

BAY-BREASTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.9 103.4 19.9 - 451.1 1.7 12.8 5.3 77.3 0.0 - - 702.4

 2 69.8 126.1 - 12.9 100.3 111.8 236.2 0.2 7.3 6.0 - - 670.4

 3 - - 111.6 618.9 0.0 0.1 1,224.0 25.6 0.0 46.7 25,330.5 2.5 27,359.9

 4 - - - - - - 20.2 - - 0.0 - 9,524.3 9,544.5

Total (km ) 100.6 229.5 131.6 631.8 551.5 113.6 1,493.1 31.0 84.6 52.7 25,330.5 9,526.7 68.3 38,345.5 2

BLACKPOLL Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 11.6 100.1 0.2 - 617.7 1.4 15.0 0.0 83.8 0.0 - - 829.8

 2 16.9 109.2 - 0.0 114.6 34.6 246.0 0.0 7.9 2.5 - - 531.7

 3 - - 72.3 376.0 0.0 0.0 1,207.5 0.1 0.0 57.3 26,042.5 0.3 27,756.1

 4 - - - - - - 8.4 - - 0.0 - 4,949.2 4,957.6

Total (km ) 28.5 209.3 72.5 376.0 732.3 36.0 1,476.9 0.1 91.8 59.9 26,042.5 4,949.5 69.5 34,144.7 2
A11 - 52

BLACK-&-WHITE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 21.3 60.9 34.6 - 449.5 6.1 12.0 3.6 67.5 0.6 - - 656.1

 2 62.7 93.5 - 12.7 65.1 202.4 242.4 0.2 8.9 10.8 - - 698.7

 3 - - 209.7 625.2 0.5 2.6 1,286.3 23.4 0.4 55.2 25,003.7 2.3 27,209.3

 4 - - - - - - 17.1 - - 0.0 - 19,947.9 19,965.0

Total (km ) 84.0 154.4 244.3 637.9 515.0 211.1 1,557.9 27.2 76.8 66.6 25,003.7 19,950.2 231.4 48,760.5 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 REDSTART FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 24.4 66.2 38.3 - 511.4 6.8 13.8 7.1 93.7 0.7 - - 762.5

 2 86.0 102.9 - 14.4 75.7 250.4 281.7 0.4 13.2 12.8 - - 837.4

 3 - - 229.4 824.9 0.5 3.2 1,497.8 28.3 0.4 71.2 34,976.0 3.5 37,635.4

 4 - - - - - - 18.2 - - 0.0 - 23,659.1 23,677.3

Total (km ) 110.4 169.1 267.7 839.3 587.6 260.4 1,811.4 35.9 107.3 84.7 34,976.0 23,662.6 290.3 63,202.8 2

OVENBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 31.9 110.0 43.7 - 591.9 6.5 15.0 5.7 114.2 0.6 - - 919.4

 2 86.6 151.7 - 13.7 109.9 248.9 329.2 0.2 14.7 13.4 - - 968.2

 3 - - 231.2 785.4 0.6 3.2 1,574.5 29.3 0.4 69.2 30,966.3 2.9 33,663.1

 4 - - - - - - 22.1 - - 0.0 - 22,418.4 22,440.5

Total (km ) 118.5 261.6 274.9 799.1 702.4 258.6 1,940.8 35.3 129.3 83.1 30,966.3 22,421.4 321.4 58,312.6 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WATERTHRUSH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 24.5 76.3 18.2 - 311.2 5.6 6.6 6.2 97.3 0.2 - - 546.1

 2 81.1 80.6 - 11.9 71.8 197.4 224.9 0.3 12.8 9.0 - - 689.8

 3 - - 99.7 491.7 0.6 2.7 837.6 19.4 0.4 39.3 17,363.8 2.7 18,857.9
A11 - 53

 4 - - - - - - 11.9 - - 0.0 - 13,844.9 13,856.8

Total (km ) 105.6 156.9 117.9 503.5 383.6 205.8 1,081.1 25.9 110.4 48.5 17,363.8 13,847.6 307.1 34,257.6 2

LOUISIANA Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WATERTHRUSH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 6.6 - 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 - - 13.3

 2 4.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 26.9 3.8 0.0 0.6 0.7 - - 36.3

 3 - - 33.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 67.9 0.1 106.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,250.9 1,250.9

Total (km ) 4.2 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.1 28.7 7.7 0.5 5.7 1.0 67.9 1,250.9 11.9 1,418.6 2

MOURNING Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 4.9 9.9 3.5 - 77.6 0.3 2.2 5.3 36.4 0.0 - - 140.0

 2 44.3 17.1 - 2.9 12.8 71.0 64.8 0.3 7.4 1.4 - - 221.9

 3 - - 18.5 245.0 0.0 0.6 266.6 5.6 0.0 17.8 11,856.4 1.9 12,412.4

 4 - - - - - - 1.8 - - 0.0 - 3,917.0 3,918.9

Total (km ) 49.2 26.9 22.0 247.9 90.4 71.9 335.4 11.2 43.8 19.2 11,856.4 3,918.9 56.7 16,749.8 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

YELLOWTHROAT

Category 1 36.2 119.2 45.7 - 662.5 8.1 16.6 9.3 139.1 0.7 - - 1,037.3

 2 118.7 168.4 - 15.0 117.8 307.9 386.5 0.7 21.1 16.4 - - 1,152.5

 3 - - 252.0 978.3 0.7 3.7 1,766.0 34.8 0.8 81.3 40,761.0 4.1 43,882.7

 4 - - - - - - 24.3 - - 0.0 - 30,754.9 30,779.3

Total (km ) 154.9 287.6 297.7 993.3 781.0 319.7 2,193.4 44.8 160.9 98.3 40,761.0 30,759.1 454.0 77,305.7 2
A11 - 54

WILSON'S Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 6.1 8.6 0.7 - 84.4 0.4 2.3 5.8 34.8 0.0 - - 143.0

 2 48.5 15.1 - 2.9 14.0 69.0 71.4 0.3 4.8 1.0 - - 226.8

 3 - - 13.6 252.3 0.0 0.0 277.1 5.1 0.0 17.3 11,957.2 1.8 12,524.4

 4 - - - - - - 2.4 - - 0.0 - 2,613.4 2,615.8

Total (km ) 54.5 23.6 14.3 255.2 98.4 69.4 353.2 11.2 39.6 18.3 11,957.2 2,615.2 84.2 15,594.2 2

CANADA Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WARBLER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 34.4 114.4 45.2 - 647.3 7.2 16.4 8.1 132.7 0.7 - - 1,006.5

 2 105.3 164.8 - 14.7 116.1 278.6 369.8 0.4 18.2 14.7 - - 1,082.6

 3 - - 243.4 940.4 0.7 3.5 1,730.1 32.3 0.5 77.5 39,100.0 3.8 42,132.1

 4 - - - - - - 23.5 - - 0.0 - 25,643.9 25,667.4

Total (km ) 139.7 279.3 288.6 955.0 764.1 289.3 2,139.7 40.8 151.4 92.9 39,100.0 25,647.8 383.3 70,271.9 2

SCARLET Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TANAGER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.4 111.1 44.0 - 599.6 6.5 15.0 5.8 116.1 0.6 - - 931.1

 2 87.8 154.2 - 13.8 111.7 254.4 334.7 0.3 14.8 13.9 - - 985.5

 3 - - 236.7 792.6 0.6 3.3 1,592.1 29.9 0.5 70.7 31,273.5 3.0 34,002.8

 4 - - - - - - 22.3 - - 0.0 - 22,968.2 22,990.6

Total (km ) 120.2 265.2 280.8 806.4 711.9 264.2 1,964.2 35.9 131.4 85.2 31,273.5 22,971.2 334.7 59,244.7 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CARDINAL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 13.4 113.3 44.8 - 0.0 6.5 1.9 0.3 56.2 0.7 - - 237.1

 2 24.3 44.6 - 0.0 0.0 140.9 94.4 0.1 8.5 6.7 - - 319.5

 3 - - 162.0 5.4 0.6 3.1 156.9 3.5 0.5 9.4 1,719.1 0.8 2,061.3
A11 - 55

 4 - - - - - - 18.2 - - 0.0 - 14,533.4 14,551.6

Total (km ) 37.7 157.9 206.9 5.4 0.6 150.4 271.3 3.9 65.3 16.8 1,719.1 14,534.2 40.2 17,209.8 2

ROSE-BREASTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GROSBEAK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 34.1 113.4 45.2 - 649.5 7.2 16.0 7.5 126.2 0.6 - - 999.8

 2 100.6 164.1 - 14.8 115.6 276.0 359.0 0.4 17.8 14.7 - - 1,063.0

 3 - - 243.5 942.6 0.6 3.5 1,725.6 32.9 0.5 77.9 39,653.6 3.9 42,684.4

 4 - - - - - - 23.3 - - 0.0 - 25,761.2 25,784.5

Total (km ) 134.7 277.5 288.7 957.4 765.7 286.7 2,123.9 40.7 144.5 93.3 39,653.6 25,765.1 369.2 70,900.9 2

INDIGO BUNTING FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 5.8 11.3 1.0 - 0.0 1.3 0.3 4.9 22.8 0.0 - - 47.4

 2 43.6 16.7 - 1.5 0.0 80.2 31.4 0.6 7.5 2.6 - - 184.2

 3 - - 12.1 183.7 0.0 0.3 141.1 6.6 0.4 7.5 5,192.5 1.6 5,545.7

 4 - - - - - - 2.9 - - 0.0 - 8,322.3 8,325.2

Total (km ) 49.5 28.0 13.1 185.3 0.0 81.8 175.7 12.1 30.7 10.1 5,192.5 8,323.9 68.3 14,170.9 2

EASTERN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

TOWHEE

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 8.6 62.6 34.6 - 0.0 6.0 0.6 2.9 43.3 0.7 - - 159.1

 2 23.1 37.4 - 4.7 0.0 126.9 105.9 0.5 8.3 7.1 - - 313.9

 3 - - 172.4 51.5 0.4 2.6 279.3 20.3 0.7 15.2 4,501.8 0.9 5,045.1

 4 - - - - - - 16.3 - - 0.0 - 18,499.0 18,515.3

Total (km ) 31.6 100.0 207.0 56.2 0.4 135.4 402.1 23.7 52.2 22.9 4,501.8 18,499.9 39.6 24,073.0 2
A11 - 56

CHIPPING Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.5 115.6 45.5 - 653.4 7.7 16.4 9.0 136.3 0.7 - - 1,020.0

 2 112.3 165.5 - 13.9 115.7 283.8 372.8 0.7 19.5 16.2 - - 1,100.5

 3 - - 250.0 953.1 0.7 3.5 1,732.7 33.9 0.8 81.2 39,999.3 3.8 43,059.0

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 29,978.1 30,002.2

Total (km ) 147.8 281.1 295.5 966.9 769.7 295.1 2,146.0 43.7 156.6 98.1 39,999.3 29,981.9 402.1 75,583.7 2

FIELD SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.0 6.0 0.9 - 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.5 6.4 0.0 - - 18.1

 2 15.4 4.4 - 0.4 0.0 19.1 10.0 0.4 3.2 1.8 - - 54.7

 3 - - 4.4 48.0 0.0 0.2 25.8 4.1 0.3 2.7 1,219.1 0.9 1,305.4

 4 - - - - - - 1.0 - - 0.0 - 5,158.4 5,159.4

Total (km ) 17.5 10.4 5.2 48.5 0.0 20.3 37.0 6.0 9.9 4.6 1,219.1 5,159.3 9.8 6,547.5 2

VESPER SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.5 6.1 3.3 - 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.1 10.5 0.0 - - 24.6

 2 18.1 3.4 - 0.3 0.0 39.5 12.4 0.3 1.9 1.7 - - 77.6

 3 - - 21.8 60.3 0.1 0.3 48.9 2.3 0.4 1.4 1,207.4 0.3 1,343.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.9 - - 0.0 - 5,325.9 5,326.8

Total (km ) 20.6 9.5 25.1 60.6 0.1 40.9 62.4 3.7 12.7 3.1 1,207.4 5,326.2 14.0 6,786.1 2

SAVANNAH Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 2.2 5.2 0.4 - 15.1 0.9 0.3 2.5 12.2 0.0 - - 38.9

 2 20.7 4.7 - 0.3 2.4 33.1 26.3 0.5 4.5 1.9 - - 94.2

 3 - - 12.5 40.4 0.0 0.2 40.3 2.8 0.4 3.9 1,670.6 0.2 1,771.3
A11 - 57

 4 - - - - - - 1.1 - - 0.0 - 5,931.4 5,932.5

Total (km ) 22.9 9.9 12.9 40.7 17.5 34.1 68.0 5.7 17.1 5.8 1,670.6 5,931.7 76.2 7,913.1 2

GRASSHOPPER Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 - - 2.9

 2 1.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 3.6 2.3 0.0 0.4 0.8 - - 8.1

 3 - - 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 3.3 0.0 4.9

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,215.2 1,215.2

Total (km ) 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.6 0.5 3.2 1.0 3.3 1,215.2 1.7 1,232.7 2

SALT. SHARP- Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TAIL. SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 - - 0.2

 2 8.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 - - 16.4

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 22.7 22.7

Total (km ) 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 22.7 0.9 40.3 2

NELSON'S SHARP- Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 TAIL. SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.1 1.4 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 - - 3.4

 2 0.8 0.4 - 0.0 0.0 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 8.5

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 5.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.5 - - 0.0 - 65.5 65.9

Total (km ) 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.9 4.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.6 65.5 2.7 85.9 2

FOX SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other
A11 - 58

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 438.3 0.0 13.9 0.0 23.6 0.0 - - 475.7

 2 0.0 1.9 - 0.0 109.4 17.8 140.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 - - 272.0

 3 - - 25.0 78.9 0.0 0.0 582.3 0.0 0.0 51.4 16,675.8 0.1 17,413.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,791.7 1,791.7

Total (km ) 0.0 1.9 25.0 78.9 547.7 17.8 736.5 0.0 23.6 53.9 16,675.8 1,791.8 35.3 19,988.2 2

SONG SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.8 119.0 45.7 - 662.0 8.1 16.4 9.3 139.5 0.7 - - 1,037.6

 2 119.7 168.2 - 15.1 117.9 309.1 386.2 0.7 21.1 16.8 - - 1,154.7

 3 - - 256.8 974.3 0.7 3.7 1,764.6 34.9 0.8 82.3 40,623.4 4.1 43,745.5

 4 - - - - - - 24.8 - - 0.0 - 31,188.1 31,212.9

Total (km ) 156.5 287.1 302.5 989.3 780.6 321.0 2,192.0 44.9 161.5 99.8 40,623.4 31,192.2 453.7 77,604.4 2

LINCOLN'S Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.1 2.3 0.0 - 70.5 0.4 2.1 0.4 32.9 0.0 - - 113.6

 2 36.3 6.8 - 1.5 12.7 54.2 57.3 0.0 3.2 0.8 - - 172.9

 3 - - 10.3 231.2 0.0 0.0 227.5 1.1 0.0 14.2 10,829.3 1.3 11,314.8

 4 - - - - - - 1.8 - - 0.0 - 1,933.3 1,935.1

Total (km ) 41.4 9.1 10.3 232.7 83.2 54.6 288.7 1.5 36.1 15.0 10,829.3 1,934.6 54.0 13,590.5 2

SWAMP SPARROW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.2 4.5 0.0 - 16.2 0.5 1.1 1.7 16.9 0.0 - - 43.1

 2 32.2 5.1 - 0.2 4.0 52.3 33.5 0.1 3.4 0.5 - - 131.3

 3 - - 4.0 45.0 0.1 0.1 49.7 1.3 0.1 2.9 1,288.5 0.3 1,392.1

 4 - - - - - - 1.2 - - 0.0 - 1,087.5 1,088.6

Total (km ) 34.4 9.6 4.0 45.3 20.3 52.9 85.4 3.2 20.3 3.3 1,288.5 1,087.8 89.6 2,744.6 2
A11 - 59

WHITE-THROATE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

D FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 SPARROW

Category 1 34.8 114.6 45.3 - 650.6 7.3 16.4 8.5 133.7 0.7 - - 1,011.8

 2 107.8 165.7 - 14.7 116.6 281.2 372.1 0.4 19.6 14.8 - - 1,093.0

 3 - - 243.3 950.2 0.7 3.5 1,738.8 33.2 0.5 78.2 39,904.7 3.9 42,957.0

 4 - - - - - - 23.7 - - 0.0 - 25,904.7 25,928.4

Total (km ) 142.6 280.4 288.7 964.9 767.9 291.9 2,151.0 42.2 153.7 93.8 39,904.7 25,908.6 387.5 71,377.7 2

DARK-EYED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 JUNCO FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.2 115.1 45.7 - 651.0 7.7 16.2 8.0 130.2 0.7 - - 1,009.7

 2 104.0 165.8 - 13.9 115.0 274.1 362.3 0.7 17.8 16.2 - - 1,069.8

 3 - - 249.9 944.0 0.7 3.5 1,725.7 34.0 0.8 80.7 39,774.4 3.9 42,817.4

 4 - - - - - - 24.0 - - 0.0 - 30,047.4 30,071.4

Total (km ) 139.2 280.9 295.5 957.9 766.6 285.4 2,128.3 42.7 148.8 97.5 39,774.4 30,051.3 382.3 75,350.6 2

BOBOLINK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 2.1 4.5 0.4 - 14.4 0.9 0.3 1.9 11.8 0.0 - - 36.3

 2 20.3 4.3 - 0.3 2.4 31.3 25.7 0.3 4.3 1.6 - - 90.5

 3 - - 8.3 37.2 0.0 0.2 38.8 2.5 0.3 3.6 1,620.2 0.2 1,711.3

 4 - - - - - - 0.9 - - 0.0 - 5,006.3 5,007.2

Total (km ) 22.4 8.8 8.7 37.5 16.8 32.4 65.7 4.7 16.5 5.2 1,620.2 5,006.5 69.9 6,915.2 2

RED-WINGED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BLACKBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 3.9 9.0 2.8 - 33.8 1.3 1.9 4.8 36.7 0.0 - - 94.1
A11 - 60

 2 49.6 9.2 - 1.7 9.4 98.9 55.2 0.5 6.4 2.5 - - 233.4

 3 - - 22.4 116.2 0.2 0.6 148.7 3.9 0.3 12.0 3,882.8 0.9 4,188.0

 4 - - - - - - 1.5 - - 0.0 - 6,185.6 6,187.1

Total (km ) 53.5 18.3 25.2 117.8 43.5 100.9 207.2 9.1 43.4 14.5 3,882.8 6,186.5 121.1 10,823.7 2

EASTERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MEADOWLARK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 3.1 7.0 0.4 - 1.5 0.9 0.2 2.6 13.3 0.0 - - 29.0

 2 24.7 5.1 - 0.3 0.0 36.6 18.7 0.4 5.0 1.7 - - 92.6

 3 - - 8.3 40.6 0.0 0.1 35.4 3.1 0.4 2.9 1,243.6 0.3 1,334.6

 4 - - - - - - 1.5 - - 0.0 - 6,152.7 6,154.2

Total (km ) 27.8 12.1 8.7 40.9 1.5 37.6 55.8 6.1 18.6 4.7 1,243.6 6,153.0 42.4 7,652.8 2

RUSTY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BLACKBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 16.4 0.0 0.0 - 236.0 1.0 4.4 0.0 41.8 0.0 - - 299.7

 2 29.2 10.6 - 0.7 66.3 64.5 128.4 0.0 4.0 2.9 - - 306.6

 3 - - 29.0 291.1 0.0 0.0 477.2 0.0 0.0 22.3 10,676.4 0.8 11,496.7

 4 - - - - - - 3.5 - - 0.0 - 2,132.6 2,136.2

Total (km ) 45.6 10.6 29.0 291.8 302.3 65.5 613.5 0.0 45.8 25.2 10,676.4 2,133.4 94.6 14,333.7 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GRACKLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.4 92.2 14.7 - 373.0 5.1 8.6 9.2 106.4 0.1 - - 644.8

 2 110.7 116.8 - 9.4 95.1 214.3 243.9 0.8 17.6 11.9 - - 820.5

 3 - - 103.0 641.5 0.4 1.7 1,016.2 29.0 0.7 46.3 26,419.9 3.5 28,262.3

 4 - - - - - - 19.8 - - 0.0 - 21,303.9 21,323.7

Total (km ) 146.1 209.0 117.7 650.9 468.5 221.1 1,288.5 39.0 124.8 58.3 26,419.9 21,307.4 375.3 51,426.6 2
A11 - 61

BROWN-HEADED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 COWBIRD FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 5.5 12.2 3.7 - 72.4 1.8 2.0 5.8 36.8 0.1 - - 140.3

 2 46.6 15.1 - 2.5 11.8 102.3 58.6 0.7 7.5 4.0 - - 249.0

 3 - - 31.5 241.8 0.2 0.8 249.3 7.8 0.4 19.8 11,492.5 1.9 12,046.0

 4 - - - - - - 2.3 - - 0.0 - 10,061.2 10,063.6

Total (km ) 52.1 27.2 35.3 244.3 84.3 104.9 312.2 14.3 44.7 23.9 11,492.5 10,063.1 135.5 22,634.3 2

BALTIMORE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 ORIOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 20.6 60.6 34.4 - 442.7 6.2 11.9 3.1 65.9 0.6 - - 645.9

 2 59.8 89.5 - 12.3 65.4 196.6 238.7 0.2 8.5 10.8 - - 681.8

 3 - - 210.6 604.8 0.5 2.6 1,249.3 23.0 0.4 54.2 23,764.5 2.1 25,911.9

 4 - - - - - - 16.8 - - 0.0 - 19,730.2 19,747.1

Total (km ) 80.4 150.1 245.0 617.1 508.5 205.4 1,516.7 26.3 74.8 65.6 23,764.5 19,732.3 230.8 47,217.5 2

PINE GROSBEAK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 373.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 28.6 0.0 - - 408.1

 2 0.0 15.0 - 0.0 92.2 28.3 117.8 0.0 3.3 0.5 - - 257.0

 3 - - 18.6 125.2 0.0 0.0 513.1 0.0 0.0 26.9 15,778.5 0.2 16,462.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,967.9 1,967.9

Total (km ) 0.0 15.0 18.6 125.2 465.1 28.3 637.3 0.0 31.9 27.4 15,778.5 1,968.0 38.7 19,134.0 2

PURPLE FINCH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 32.8 107.8 20.8 - 488.8 6.5 13.7 7.6 116.6 0.3 - - 794.8

 2 98.3 131.8 - 12.7 105.6 210.3 285.1 0.3 15.5 11.8 - - 871.4

 3 - - 133.1 714.5 0.6 2.4 1,323.1 30.1 0.4 57.9 31,091.3 3.4 33,356.6
A11 - 62

 4 - - - - - - 21.2 - - 0.0 - 19,661.5 19,682.8

Total (km ) 131.1 239.5 153.9 727.1 594.9 219.3 1,643.1 38.0 132.5 69.9 31,091.3 19,664.9 325.8 55,031.5 2

RED CROSSBILL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 29.0 80.4 13.4 - 294.9 3.3 6.8 4.4 76.4 0.1 - - 508.8

 2 64.0 96.2 - 6.7 85.5 121.1 175.0 0.1 8.9 7.5 - - 565.0

 3 - - 71.0 430.7 0.3 1.3 798.3 21.4 0.3 31.1 15,978.2 1.8 17,334.5

 4 - - - - - - 16.7 - - 0.0 - 11,205.2 11,221.8

Total (km ) 93.1 176.6 84.4 437.4 380.7 125.7 996.9 25.8 85.7 38.7 15,978.2 11,206.9 208.9 29,839.0 2

WHITE-WINGED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CROSSBILL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 29.1 81.2 13.6 - 296.7 1.7 7.0 4.3 70.1 0.1 - - 503.7

 2 61.6 96.4 - 6.9 85.7 109.1 179.3 0.2 8.4 6.5 - - 554.0

 3 - - 63.2 437.0 0.2 1.4 806.3 21.1 0.1 31.3 16,036.9 1.8 17,399.4

 4 - - - - - - 16.5 - - 0.0 - 10,132.6 10,149.1

Total (km ) 90.7 177.6 76.8 443.9 382.6 112.2 1,009.0 25.6 78.6 37.8 16,036.9 10,134.4 65.8 28,671.9 2

PINE SISKIN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 30.9 107.0 20.2 - 452.1 6.3 12.8 6.1 108.4 0.3 - - 743.9

 2 87.9 123.8 - 12.9 103.0 206.7 267.1 0.2 15.0 11.2 - - 827.9

 3 - - 129.7 590.0 0.6 2.3 1,217.4 28.0 0.4 51.0 24,084.8 2.7 26,106.8

 4 - - - - - - 20.3 - - 0.0 - 17,905.0 17,925.3

Total (km ) 118.7 230.8 149.9 602.9 555.7 215.3 1,517.5 34.3 123.8 62.5 24,084.8 17,907.7 303.4 45,907.3 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GOLDFINCH FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 63

Category 1 4.7 9.6 0.7 - 54.1 1.3 0.9 3.8 23.7 0.0 - - 98.7

 2 38.6 10.9 - 0.8 7.1 67.7 51.8 0.6 6.3 2.6 - - 186.5

 3 - - 19.2 149.5 0.1 0.3 131.6 5.8 0.4 10.0 7,704.3 1.3 8,022.3

 4 - - - - - - 2.4 - - 0.0 - 8,232.1 8,234.5

Total (km ) 43.3 20.4 19.9 150.3 61.3 69.3 186.7 10.1 30.3 12.7 7,704.3 8,233.4 138.6 16,680.6 2

EVENING Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GROSBEAK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.4 105.2 21.2 - 448.5 1.7 12.5 4.9 82.2 0.1 - - 706.7

 2 67.4 122.4 - 12.9 102.0 136.6 247.1 0.2 10.0 7.6 - - 706.2

 3 - - 113.8 570.1 0.1 2.2 1,203.6 26.6 0.0 48.0 23,406.3 2.4 25,373.3

 4 - - - - - - 19.6 - - 0.0 - 14,213.0 14,232.6

Total (km ) 97.8 227.6 135.1 582.9 550.6 140.5 1,482.9 31.8 92.2 55.8 23,406.3 14,215.4 81.4 41,100.3 2

VIRGINIA Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 OPOSSUM FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 4.9 0.2 0.0 11.7 0.0 - - 16.8

 2 8.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 25.7 4.7 0.0 1.2 3.5 - - 43.3

 3 - - 13.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.8 37.0 0.1 54.8

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 2,485.0 2,485.0

Total (km ) 8.1 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.2 30.7 6.9 0.5 13.1 4.3 37.0 2,485.1 6.0 2,605.9 2

MASKED SHREW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 37.2 120.1 45.8 - 663.9 8.3 16.6 10.1 141.2 0.7 - - 1,044.0

 2 121.0 169.5 - 15.2 118.2 312.3 396.6 0.8 21.5 16.6 - - 1,171.8

 3 - - 256.6 983.7 0.7 3.7 1,773.3 35.2 0.9 81.8 40,928.2 4.2 44,068.2

 4 - - - - - - 25.0 - - 0.0 - 31,882.7 31,907.7

Total (km ) 158.2 289.6 302.4 999.0 782.8 324.3 2,211.6 46.2 163.6 99.1 40,928.2 31,886.9 499.7 78,691.5 2
A11 - 64

WATER SHREW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.5 9.9 3.0 - 53.0 0.6 1.3 4.1 33.6 0.0 - - 110.0

 2 44.5 9.2 - 1.9 12.1 95.2 58.1 0.2 5.9 1.5 - - 228.6

 3 - - 20.0 134.7 0.1 0.7 180.2 3.9 0.0 12.4 4,623.4 0.9 4,976.2

 4 - - - - - - 2.1 - - 0.0 - 2,948.1 2,950.1

Total (km ) 49.0 19.0 23.0 136.6 65.3 96.5 241.6 8.2 39.5 13.9 4,623.4 2,949.0 147.0 8,411.9 2

SMOKY SHREW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.0 113.7 45.3 - 661.1 7.3 16.3 9.0 135.9 0.7 - - 1,025.3

 2 116.5 166.4 - 14.8 118.0 298.9 382.2 0.4 20.3 14.8 - - 1,132.4

 3 - - 245.2 972.4 0.6 3.5 1,763.5 33.0 0.5 79.4 40,506.8 4.0 43,609.0

 4 - - - - - - 24.5 - - 0.0 - 25,880.3 25,904.8

Total (km ) 152.5 280.1 290.5 987.2 779.6 309.7 2,186.6 42.5 156.7 94.9 40,506.8 25,884.2 448.3 72,119.7 2

LONG-TAILED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SHREW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 42.7 - 149.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.2 0.0 - - 202.7

 2 3.4 111.0 - 1.8 1.1 37.2 168.5 0.0 3.9 0.1 - - 326.9

 3 - - 170.4 240.8 0.0 1.4 620.2 2.1 0.0 8.1 8,926.3 0.1 9,969.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 5,515.1 5,515.1

Total (km ) 3.4 111.0 213.2 242.5 150.7 38.6 788.7 2.2 14.1 8.3 8,926.3 5,515.1 33.5 16,047.6 2

PYGMY SHREW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.1 117.2 45.7 - 666.3 3.2 16.3 9.5 131.4 0.7 - - 1,026.4

 2 111.7 167.2 - 16.1 118.4 293.3 397.9 0.8 20.1 13.5 - - 1,138.9
A11 - 65

 3 - - 241.5 988.9 0.7 3.7 1,778.7 34.9 0.8 81.4 40,868.8 4.2 44,003.6

 4 - - - - - - 24.4 - - 0.0 - 28,700.1 28,724.4

Total (km ) 147.9 284.4 287.2 1,005.0 785.4 300.2 2,217.3 45.2 152.3 95.7 40,868.8 28,704.2 222.1 75,115.5 2

N. SHORT-TAILED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SHREW FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 36.2 118.4 45.7 - 679.3 7.9 16.6 9.4 138.5 0.7 - - 1,052.9

 2 117.8 168.5 - 14.8 117.8 307.3 385.6 0.7 21.0 16.3 - - 1,149.8

 3 - - 251.2 975.5 0.7 3.7 1,761.8 34.8 0.8 81.1 40,630.3 4.1 43,744.0

 4 - - - - - - 24.4 - - 0.0 - 30,728.2 30,752.6

Total (km ) 154.0 287.0 296.9 990.3 797.8 318.9 2,188.4 44.9 160.3 98.1 40,630.3 30,732.3 449.0 77,148.4 2

STAR-NOSED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 25.5 65.2 16.0 - 227.8 6.1 7.3 8.3 104.1 0.2 - - 460.6

 2 97.3 68.0 - 12.6 70.9 214.5 224.6 0.6 15.2 9.7 - - 713.3

 3 - - 79.9 541.3 0.7 2.9 810.3 20.1 0.6 37.6 18,957.9 3.6 20,455.0

 4 - - - - - - 10.7 - - 0.0 - 15,351.8 15,362.5

Total (km ) 122.8 133.2 96.0 553.9 299.4 223.6 1,052.8 29.0 119.9 47.5 18,957.9 15,355.4 451.7 37,443.1 2

HAIRY-TAILED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 32.4 109.8 42.9 - 627.0 7.6 15.4 5.5 107.3 0.7 - - 948.4

 2 78.3 162.3 - 13.2 107.0 222.2 333.6 0.6 15.4 15.0 - - 947.4

 3 - - 235.5 855.1 0.5 3.1 1,606.3 31.0 0.8 69.9 36,596.6 3.2 39,401.8

 4 - - - - - - 22.8 - - 0.0 - 28,037.8 28,060.5

Total (km ) 110.6 272.1 278.4 868.3 734.6 232.9 1,978.0 37.0 123.5 85.5 36,596.6 28,040.9 326.3 69,684.6 2
A11 - 66

LITTLE BROWN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MYOTIS FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 38.0 135.5 45.7 - 689.3 8.9 17.9 10.1 150.2 0.7 - - 1,096.3

 2 132.3 174.9 - 19.3 119.2 336.2 431.4 0.8 22.5 17.6 - - 1,254.1

 3 - - 261.7 996.4 0.8 3.8 1,796.2 36.0 0.9 83.3 40,989.1 5.2 44,173.4

 4 - - - - - - 25.2 - - 0.0 - 33,122.2 33,147.4

Total (km ) 170.3 310.4 307.4 1,015.7 809.3 348.8 2,270.7 46.9 173.7 101.6 40,989.1 33,127.4 3,801.2 83,472.4 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MYOTIS FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 37.3 134.5 45.6 - 688.4 8.6 17.3 10.1 146.8 0.7 - - 1,089.3

 2 130.3 172.9 - 19.0 119.2 332.1 430.8 0.8 22.1 17.0 - - 1,244.3

 3 - - 256.9 992.5 0.8 3.7 1,791.5 35.8 0.9 81.7 40,862.5 5.2 44,031.5

 4 - - - - - - 24.6 - - 0.0 - 32,454.3 32,478.9

Total (km ) 167.6 307.4 302.5 1,011.5 808.4 344.4 2,264.2 46.7 169.9 99.4 40,862.5 32,459.5 3,801.4 82,645.3 2

E. Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

SMALL-FOOTED FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

 MYOTIS

Category 1 0.0 0.0 45.4 - 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.1 - - 48.5

 2 0.6 1.9 - 0.0 0.0 36.5 56.2 0.0 1.7 1.2 - - 98.0

 3 - - 150.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 41.5 1.3 0.0 1.9 538.2 0.0 734.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 3,888.9 3,888.9

Total (km ) 0.6 1.9 195.8 0.0 0.0 37.6 97.8 1.3 4.6 3.2 538.2 3,888.9 235.3 5,005.1 2

SILVER-HAIRED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BAT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 27.6 88.4 18.6 - 330.4 6.8 7.6 7.8 109.5 0.2 - - 596.9

 2 103.0 89.2 - 16.4 74.1 238.3 273.9 0.6 16.4 10.6 - - 822.6
A11 - 67

 3 - - 106.0 543.4 0.7 2.7 900.1 22.5 0.6 43.3 18,976.0 4.1 20,599.4

 4 - - - - - - 13.1 - - 0.0 - 17,809.8 17,822.9

Total (km ) 130.6 177.6 124.7 559.7 405.2 247.8 1,194.8 30.9 126.6 54.1 18,976.0 17,813.9 2,251.2 42,093.0 2

EASTERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 PIPISTRELLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 9.3 112.5 9.0 - 0.0 6.9 2.2 0.4 56.0 0.6 - - 196.9

 2 25.6 33.9 - 0.0 0.0 115.8 40.0 0.0 7.1 6.7 - - 229.1

 3 - - 43.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 84.0 3.3 0.9 6.9 446.4 0.4 588.3

 4 - - - - - - 10.2 - - 0.0 - 10,850.4 10,860.6

Total (km ) 34.9 146.4 52.9 1.3 0.8 123.2 136.4 3.7 64.0 14.2 446.4 10,850.8 537.3 12,412.2 2

BIG BROWN BAT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.3 133.2 45.5 - 675.6 8.7 17.4 8.5 145.0 0.7 - - 1,070.9

 2 125.6 168.2 - 18.8 119.4 320.5 414.2 0.6 21.3 16.7 - - 1,205.4

 3 - - 253.9 949.5 0.8 3.8 1,742.3 34.6 0.9 79.9 38,792.3 4.9 41,862.9

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 31,177.3 31,201.4

Total (km ) 162.0 301.4 299.4 968.2 795.8 332.9 2,198.0 43.8 167.2 97.4 38,792.3 31,182.2 3,755.6 79,096.2 2

EASTERN RED FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

BAT

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.8 121.0 45.2 - 661.4 8.6 17.7 9.4 146.8 0.7 - - 1,047.5

 2 129.0 171.3 - 18.6 117.2 328.6 416.8 0.7 21.9 17.1 - - 1,221.2

 3 - - 253.9 979.8 0.8 3.7 1,767.9 35.2 0.9 81.9 40,325.4 5.1 43,454.5

 4 - - - - - - 24.4 - - 0.0 - 31,548.0 31,572.4

Total (km ) 165.9 292.3 299.1 998.3 779.3 340.8 2,226.8 45.3 169.6 99.7 40,325.4 31,553.1 3,748.3 81,043.9 2
A11 - 68

HOARY BAT Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 37.1 121.2 44.9 - 661.8 8.4 17.4 9.5 146.0 0.6 - - 1,046.9

 2 129.0 171.9 - 18.6 117.6 326.5 417.1 0.7 22.0 16.6 - - 1,220.0

 3 - - 248.7 979.3 0.7 3.6 1,766.8 35.2 0.9 80.5 40,325.6 5.1 43,446.5

 4 - - - - - - 24.4 - - 0.0 - 31,017.0 31,041.4

Total (km ) 166.0 293.1 293.6 997.9 780.1 338.5 2,225.7 45.3 169.0 97.7 40,325.6 31,022.1 3,754.8 80,509.5 2

NEW ENGLAND Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 COTTONTAIL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 - - 2.4

 2 2.6 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 11.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 - - 17.5

 3 - - 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.7 23.6 0.1 31.5

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,665.7 1,665.7

Total (km ) 2.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 12.0 3.7 0.9 2.3 1.7 23.6 1,665.8 5.6 1,722.7 2

SNOWSHOE HARE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 5.9 13.4 3.7 - 77.8 1.7 2.1 6.1 44.4 0.1 - - 155.1

 2 62.9 16.0 - 2.4 13.7 119.1 77.6 0.6 9.3 3.9 - - 305.5

 3 - - 28.7 256.9 0.2 0.8 266.6 7.8 0.4 20.1 11,929.9 1.9 12,513.3

 4 - - - - - - 2.5 - - 0.0 - 9,479.2 9,481.7

Total (km ) 68.8 29.4 32.3 259.4 91.7 121.7 348.7 14.5 54.1 24.0 11,929.9 9,481.1 168.2 22,623.8 2

EASTERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 CHIPMUNK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 22.8 64.4 35.6 - 494.0 7.0 13.0 5.4 77.0 0.6 - - 719.9

 2 73.4 101.1 - 12.5 67.9 214.2 264.0 0.6 11.6 13.1 - - 758.3

 3 - - 222.9 747.4 0.5 2.8 1,379.6 27.4 0.7 64.1 32,228.2 3.1 34,676.7
A11 - 69

 4 - - - - - - 17.9 - - 0.0 - 26,446.0 26,463.9

Total (km ) 96.2 165.5 258.5 759.9 562.3 224.0 1,674.5 33.4 89.3 77.8 32,228.2 26,449.1 268.9 62,887.6 2

WOODCHUCK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 4.5 31.5 30.6 - 298.0 4.0 7.9 3.2 44.7 0.6 - - 425.0

 2 32.6 56.9 - 5.8 24.0 140.2 159.1 0.6 7.0 7.2 - - 433.5

 3 - - 168.1 377.9 0.3 2.0 779.7 9.4 0.5 41.4 16,163.4 1.1 17,543.8

 4 - - - - - - 6.5 - - 0.0 - 16,633.0 16,639.5

Total (km ) 37.1 88.4 198.7 383.8 322.3 146.2 953.2 13.3 52.2 49.1 16,163.4 16,634.1 152.0 35,193.7 2

EASTERN GRAY Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SQUIRREL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 22.0 61.7 34.6 - 196.4 6.4 0.5 3.7 50.9 0.6 - - 376.7

 2 64.1 92.3 - 13.8 4.9 195.8 167.7 0.2 8.6 8.7 - - 556.2

 3 - - 191.4 549.3 0.4 2.6 835.2 24.9 0.4 20.0 14,754.7 2.2 16,381.2

 4 - - - - - - 17.5 - - 0.0 - 18,715.4 18,732.9

Total (km ) 86.0 154.0 226.0 563.1 201.8 204.8 1,020.8 28.7 59.9 29.3 14,754.7 18,717.6 84.3 36,131.3 2

RED SQUIRREL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 29.4 103.0 20.1 - 429.8 6.1 12.4 4.6 96.2 0.3 - - 701.9

 2 70.5 118.5 - 11.5 99.1 162.0 237.8 0.1 11.2 10.5 - - 721.1

 3 - - 121.2 543.7 0.6 2.2 1,151.5 25.9 0.4 47.8 22,359.1 2.1 24,254.5

 4 - - - - - - 19.7 - - 0.0 - 16,645.2 16,664.8

Total (km ) 99.9 221.5 141.2 555.2 529.5 170.3 1,421.3 30.6 107.8 58.6 22,359.1 16,647.3 251.7 42,594.0 2

S. FLYING Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SQUIRREL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 70

Category 1 7.1 60.5 0.0 - 0.0 5.1 0.4 0.2 20.9 0.3 - - 94.6

 2 10.4 11.1 - 0.0 0.0 24.8 12.4 0.0 1.5 3.0 - - 63.3

 3 - - 10.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 59.9 0.2 0.3 2.6 140.5 0.3 214.8

 4 - - - - - - 11.1 - - 0.0 - 3,958.6 3,969.7

Total (km ) 17.6 71.7 10.5 0.1 0.4 29.9 83.9 0.4 22.7 5.8 140.5 3,958.9 5.2 4,347.6 2

N. FLYING Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 SQUIRREL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 30.6 105.5 43.5 - 580.5 6.4 14.8 5.1 108.7 0.6 - - 895.8

 2 73.9 149.0 - 13.2 106.9 226.1 315.3 0.1 13.5 13.1 - - 911.0

 3 - - 228.0 756.0 0.6 3.2 1,541.8 27.5 0.4 66.9 30,023.7 2.6 32,650.7

 4 - - - - - - 21.6 - - 0.0 - 21,346.6 21,368.2

Total (km ) 104.5 254.4 271.6 769.2 688.0 235.6 1,893.5 32.7 122.6 80.7 30,023.7 21,349.2 277.9 56,103.5 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 BEAVER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 18.5 44.4 11.8 - 230.3 5.2 5.1 7.6 76.8 0.1 - - 399.9

 2 86.1 51.0 - 15.7 40.9 206.6 205.7 0.3 11.2 7.3 - - 624.8

 3 - - 82.2 454.6 0.6 2.3 683.4 16.2 0.3 34.0 16,005.9 4.1 17,283.6

 4 - - - - - - 9.3 - - 0.0 - 12,348.5 12,357.8

Total (km ) 104.6 95.4 94.0 470.3 271.7 214.1 903.5 24.2 88.4 41.4 16,005.9 12,352.6 1,263.0 31,929.1 2

DEER MOUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 34.2 113.4 38.6 - 655.8 2.3 15.5 8.3 97.9 0.0 - - 965.9

 2 93.0 160.2 - 14.3 112.9 145.2 331.8 0.5 11.5 8.6 - - 878.1

 3 - - 206.7 925.8 0.0 1.6 1,653.8 29.9 0.0 70.1 38,625.4 3.6 41,516.9

 4 - - - - - - 23.2 - - 0.0 - 16,816.7 16,839.9

Total (km ) 127.2 273.6 245.3 940.1 768.7 149.1 2,024.3 38.7 109.4 78.8 38,625.4 16,820.3 107.3 60,308.1 2
A11 - 71

WHITE-FOOTED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MOUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.2 48.2 27.7 - 0.0 5.3 0.6 0.3 35.5 0.7 - - 118.3

 2 6.4 15.4 - 0.0 0.0 85.8 29.4 0.0 6.2 6.0 - - 149.2

 3 - - 108.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 38.1 3.4 0.9 6.2 287.9 0.1 446.0

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 9,512.2 9,512.2

Total (km ) 6.6 63.5 136.3 0.0 0.6 91.3 68.1 3.7 42.5 12.8 287.9 9,512.3 23.8 10,249.4 2

S. RED-BACKED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 VOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.0 115.8 45.3 - 650.6 7.8 16.3 9.1 135.0 0.7 - - 1,015.6

 2 112.0 164.9 - 14.6 115.1 295.8 372.6 0.7 20.4 16.1 - - 1,112.3

 3 - - 249.0 957.3 0.6 3.6 1,734.3 34.1 0.8 80.4 40,111.3 4.0 43,175.4

 4 - - - - - - 23.5 - - 0.0 - 30,027.3 30,050.8

Total (km ) 147.0 280.7 294.3 971.9 766.4 307.2 2,146.8 43.9 156.2 97.2 40,111.3 30,031.2 399.2 75,753.3 2

MEADOW VOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.8 119.3 45.7 - 680.3 8.1 16.4 10.1 139.8 0.7 - - 1,057.3

 2 119.6 169.0 - 15.1 118.0 310.0 386.1 0.8 21.2 16.5 - - 1,156.4

 3 - - 256.2 977.2 0.7 3.7 1,767.1 35.0 0.9 81.4 40,661.1 4.1 43,787.3

 4 - - - - - - 24.9 - - 0.0 - 31,581.1 31,606.0

Total (km ) 156.5 288.3 302.0 992.3 799.0 321.9 2,194.5 45.9 161.8 98.6 40,661.1 31,585.2 457.6 78,064.6 2

ROCK VOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 8.8 - 95.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 - - 112.2

 2 0.1 14.7 - 0.0 0.6 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - 37.9

 3 - - 10.7 46.4 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 717.4 0.0 818.2
A11 - 72

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 38.4 38.4

Total (km ) 0.1 14.7 19.5 46.4 96.4 0.0 64.9 0.0 7.9 1.1 717.4 38.4 11.6 1,018.2 2

WOODLAND VOLE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 - - 7.9

 2 2.9 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.9 0.0 0.3 1.5 - - 20.4

 3 - - 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.1 23.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1,283.8 1,283.8

Total (km ) 2.9 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 18.0 1.9 0.1 5.1 1.5 16.5 1,283.9 1.0 1,336.5 2

MUSKRAT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 5.7 13.3 3.4 - 54.7 1.6 2.0 5.0 40.1 0.0 - - 126.0

 2 52.5 14.6 - 2.6 12.2 106.2 74.9 0.6 7.3 2.6 - - 273.4

 3 - - 25.5 142.2 0.2 0.8 192.8 5.1 0.2 13.8 4,839.0 1.5 5,221.1

 4 - - - - - - 2.6 - - 0.0 - 6,043.3 6,045.9

Total (km ) 58.2 27.9 28.9 144.8 67.1 108.6 272.3 10.7 47.7 16.4 4,839.0 6,044.8 613.5 12,279.9 2

SOUTHERN BOG Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 LEMMING FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 24.3 65.2 37.1 - 469.3 7.2 13.0 7.0 95.2 0.6 - - 719.0

 2 91.6 92.3 - 13.0 73.2 254.3 278.0 0.6 14.2 12.5 - - 829.6

 3 - - 221.7 702.2 0.6 3.2 1,372.1 26.0 0.7 63.9 27,628.3 2.7 30,021.3

 4 - - - - - - 18.4 - - 0.0 - 24,807.9 24,826.3

Total (km ) 115.9 157.5 258.9 715.2 543.2 264.7 1,681.5 33.6 110.1 77.0 27,628.3 24,810.6 321.4 56,717.7 2

NORTHERN BOG Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 LEMMING FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 73

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 123.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 123.6

 2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.9

 3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 29.9

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1.2 1.2

Total (km ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 1.2 0.5 156.1 2

MEADOW Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 JUMPING MOUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 36.9 117.4 45.7 - 680.1 8.2 16.6 10.0 140.2 0.7 - - 1,055.7

 2 118.6 169.1 - 15.1 117.8 309.4 394.3 0.8 21.2 16.5 - - 1,162.6

 3 - - 256.0 975.5 0.7 3.6 1,765.1 34.5 0.8 81.0 40,572.8 4.1 43,694.1

 4 - - - - - - 24.8 - - 0.0 - 31,148.2 31,173.0

Total (km ) 155.5 286.4 301.6 990.6 798.5 321.3 2,200.8 45.2 162.3 98.2 40,572.8 31,152.3 487.7 77,573.2 2

WOODLAND Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 JUMPING MOUSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 13.6 36.8 9.9 - 163.8 1.3 3.7 7.4 56.8 0.0 - - 293.4

 2 55.7 40.1 - 10.2 36.6 131.2 143.8 0.6 8.9 4.0 - - 431.2

 3 - - 44.1 328.8 0.4 1.7 473.1 11.7 0.2 24.8 11,459.9 2.3 12,347.0

 4 - - - - - - 6.6 - - 0.0 - 8,115.3 8,121.8

Total (km ) 69.3 77.0 54.0 339.0 200.9 134.3 627.1 19.7 66.0 28.8 11,459.9 8,117.5 213.2 21,406.7 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 PORCUPINE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 35.7 113.3 45.0 - 649.3 7.3 16.8 8.6 135.3 0.6 - - 1,012.0

 2 112.1 166.0 - 14.4 116.7 291.3 375.7 0.4 18.9 14.5 - - 1,109.9

 3 - - 242.1 947.9 0.6 3.4 1,733.4 31.6 0.5 77.7 39,091.5 3.8 42,132.5

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 24,955.4 24,979.5

Total (km ) 147.8 279.3 287.2 962.3 766.6 302.0 2,150.0 40.5 154.7 92.9 39,091.5 24,959.2 417.4 69,651.3 2
A11 - 74

COYOTE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.9 126.0 44.2 - 697.8 8.2 16.6 8.9 138.5 0.7 - - 1,077.7

 2 115.0 168.4 - 14.2 118.1 298.3 390.2 0.4 19.7 14.9 - - 1,139.1

 3 - - 234.2 967.0 0.7 3.6 1,756.1 31.2 0.8 78.4 40,398.8 4.1 43,474.9

 4 - - - - - - 24.8 - - 0.0 - 28,222.0 28,246.7

Total (km ) 151.9 294.4 278.4 981.2 816.6 310.0 2,187.7 40.5 159.0 94.0 40,398.8 28,226.1 472.1 74,410.6 2

RED FOX FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 17.1 120.2 10.0 - 0.0 1.7 5.2 6.6 48.1 0.7 - - 209.8

 2 88.5 40.3 - 16.0 0.0 147.3 58.4 0.4 11.3 7.3 - - 369.5

 3 - - 48.6 284.8 0.8 0.7 234.2 23.6 0.6 25.2 8,373.0 2.2 8,993.6

 4 - - - - - - 7.5 - - 0.0 - 22,415.2 22,422.7

Total (km ) 105.6 160.6 58.6 300.8 0.8 149.7 305.4 30.6 60.1 33.1 8,373.0 22,417.3 976.5 32,972.1 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 GRAY FOX FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.1 0.0 45.0 - 0.0 5.2 0.3 0.2 24.2 0.7 - - 75.7

 2 9.5 5.1 - 0.0 0.0 85.3 79.6 0.0 3.6 5.5 - - 188.7

 3 - - 164.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 65.7 3.2 0.8 3.8 808.3 0.1 1,046.9

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 8,387.1 8,387.1

Total (km ) 9.7 5.1 209.3 0.0 0.6 90.6 145.6 3.4 28.6 10.0 808.3 8,387.2 27.5 9,725.8 2

BLACK BEAR FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 36.4 96.8 45.0 - 658.9 2.4 15.6 8.6 103.9 0.0 - - 967.7

 2 106.9 154.0 - 14.6 116.1 210.6 363.3 0.4 12.0 8.3 - - 986.2
A11 - 75

 3 - - 238.4 975.3 0.0 2.1 1,718.9 30.7 0.0 70.8 40,099.6 3.9 43,139.7

 4 - - - - - - 24.9 - - 0.0 - 19,028.2 19,053.1

Total (km ) 143.3 250.7 283.4 989.9 775.0 215.2 2,122.7 39.7 115.9 79.1 40,099.6 19,032.1 189.3 64,335.9 2

COMMON Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 RACCOON FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 36.6 114.0 28.9 - 513.6 8.2 11.7 10.1 136.4 0.7 - - 860.3

 2 129.3 124.6 - 18.2 105.7 303.7 354.2 0.8 20.6 15.8 - - 1,072.9

 3 - - 177.2 843.7 0.7 3.3 1,416.6 32.6 0.8 68.2 32,663.5 5.1 35,211.8

 4 - - - - - - 20.2 - - 0.0 - 27,796.6 27,816.7

Total (km ) 165.9 238.6 206.1 862.0 620.0 315.3 1,802.7 43.5 157.8 84.8 32,663.5 27,801.7 2,072.8 67,034.5 2

AMERICAN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 MARTEN FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 606.4 0.0 13.2 3.8 68.2 0.0 - - 691.6

 2 24.1 99.9 - 12.3 111.2 109.4 235.6 0.0 6.1 6.8 - - 605.3

 3 - - 59.0 794.1 0.0 0.0 1,374.7 10.9 0.0 57.9 29,202.1 1.7 31,500.4

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 5,953.3 5,953.3

Total (km ) 24.1 99.9 59.0 806.4 717.6 109.4 1,623.5 14.7 74.3 64.7 29,202.1 5,955.0 90.7 38,841.3 2

FISHER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 11.9 111.7 44.2 - 615.7 5.0 14.7 8.4 114.9 0.6 - - 927.3

 2 73.9 159.1 - 15.0 113.1 268.9 362.5 0.4 18.0 14.4 - - 1,025.4

 3 - - 238.8 877.0 0.6 3.4 1,609.3 31.3 0.5 74.4 33,864.4 3.1 36,702.8

 4 - - - - - - 16.6 - - 0.0 - 22,787.2 22,803.9

Total (km ) 85.8 270.9 283.1 892.0 729.5 277.3 2,003.1 40.0 133.4 89.5 33,864.4 22,790.3 227.5 61,686.9 2
A11 - 76

ERMINE Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 36.1 116.2 45.6 - 676.5 8.1 16.5 9.3 138.0 0.7 - - 1,047.0

 2 116.2 167.9 - 14.9 117.5 304.8 392.0 0.7 20.9 16.1 - - 1,151.1

 3 - - 250.7 962.0 0.7 3.6 1,750.2 34.0 0.8 80.4 40,130.2 4.0 43,216.6

 4 - - - - - - 24.1 - - 0.0 - 29,912.2 29,936.3

Total (km ) 152.3 284.1 296.3 976.9 794.7 316.4 2,182.9 44.0 159.7 97.1 40,130.2 29,916.2 474.4 75,825.4 2

LONG-TAILED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 WEASEL FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 36.5 118.8 45.7 - 659.8 8.1 16.5 9.5 139.0 0.7 - - 1,034.5

 2 118.6 168.1 - 14.7 117.8 307.2 394.6 0.7 21.2 16.3 - - 1,159.4

 3 - - 251.0 970.0 0.7 3.7 1,754.9 34.7 0.8 80.9 40,421.7 4.1 43,522.4

 4 - - - - - - 24.3 - - 0.0 - 30,707.0 30,731.3

Total (km ) 155.0 287.0 296.6 984.7 778.3 319.0 2,190.4 44.8 161.0 97.9 40,421.7 30,711.1 485.4 76,933.0 2

MINK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 18.9 54.5 12.2 - 230.7 4.4 5.7 7.3 86.1 0.1 - - 419.8

 2 82.8 59.6 - 14.1 49.3 195.2 220.5 0.3 12.8 6.9 - - 641.5

 3 - - 68.8 427.8 0.5 2.1 632.2 15.1 0.3 30.8 14,787.4 3.9 15,968.8

 4 - - - - - - 8.7 - - 0.0 - 10,690.6 10,699.4

Total (km ) 101.7 114.1 80.9 441.9 280.6 201.6 867.1 22.7 99.2 37.8 14,787.4 10,694.5 1,209.7 28,939.1 2

STRIPED SKUNK FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 37.1 119.6 45.7 - 663.6 8.2 16.6 10.0 140.7 0.7 - - 1,042.2

 2 119.5 169.3 - 15.1 117.8 310.7 395.9 0.8 21.4 17.1 - - 1,167.6

 3 - - 260.4 982.4 0.7 3.7 1,770.8 35.3 0.8 82.7 40,873.4 4.2 44,014.4
A11 - 77

 4 - - - - - - 24.9 - - 0.0 - 32,062.0 32,087.0

Total (km ) 156.6 288.9 306.1 997.5 782.2 322.5 2,208.3 46.1 162.9 100.5 40,873.4 32,066.2 497.9 78,809.1 2

NORTHERN Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 RIVER OTTER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Category 1 18.5 53.5 12.0 - 218.5 4.9 5.9 6.3 87.4 0.1 - - 406.9

 2 82.9 60.3 - 14.2 48.7 195.9 217.5 0.3 12.4 6.7 - - 638.9

 3 - - 68.5 382.6 0.6 2.3 604.5 14.2 0.3 29.2 12,901.8 3.6 14,007.6

 4 - - - - - - 8.4 - - 0.0 - 10,807.8 10,816.2

Total (km ) 101.3 113.8 80.4 396.8 267.9 203.1 836.3 20.7 100.1 36.0 12,901.8 10,811.4 2,262.5 28,132.2 2

LYNX FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 131.6 0.0 14.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 - - 166.5

 2 0.2 0.1 - 0.0 56.2 10.6 102.2 0.0 2.7 1.6 - - 173.7

 3 - - 0.0 208.2 0.0 0.0 416.3 0.0 0.0 32.8 15,093.8 0.1 15,751.2

 4 - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 482.4 482.4

Total (km ) 0.2 0.1 0.0 208.2 187.8 10.6 532.5 0.0 23.7 34.4 15,093.8 482.5 24.0 16,597.8 2

BOBCAT FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 34.5 0.1 45.6 - 655.8 2.4 14.8 8.9 95.8 0.1 - - 857.9

 2 103.3 126.3 - 15.4 116.7 218.3 369.7 0.7 13.9 9.6 - - 973.9

 3 - - 234.4 963.2 0.0 3.2 1,695.3 32.6 0.0 74.5 39,757.1 3.8 42,764.0

 4 - - - - - - 14.5 - - 0.0 - 20,935.9 20,950.4

Total (km ) 137.8 126.4 279.9 978.7 772.5 223.8 2,094.3 42.1 109.6 84.3 39,757.1 20,939.7 178.1 65,724.4 2

WHITE-TAILED Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

 DEER FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 
A11 - 78

Category 1 34.8 117.2 45.5 - 651.8 8.0 16.5 9.4 136.6 0.7 - - 1,020.4

 2 108.8 166.4 - 14.8 116.2 289.7 382.7 0.8 20.6 16.8 - - 1,116.9

 3 - - 257.7 947.9 0.7 3.6 1,730.9 34.6 0.8 80.8 39,797.0 4.0 42,858.0

 4 - - - - - - 23.6 - - 0.0 - 31,155.2 31,178.8

Total (km ) 143.5 283.7 303.2 962.8 768.7 301.2 2,153.7 44.8 158.0 98.3 39,797.0 31,159.2 432.9 76,607.0 2

MOOSE FWS NPS Federal American BSP IFW BPL State Conserv. ipal Forest Private Water Total 

Other Native Other Private Munic- Comm. Other

Category 1 33.7 0.1 41.4 - 634.5 2.3 14.2 6.7 80.7 0.0 - - 813.5

 2 92.9 123.2 - 14.6 109.3 185.7 354.0 0.6 12.7 8.9 - - 902.0

 3 - - 224.4 890.8 0.0 2.1 1,585.7 30.8 0.0 64.2 36,982.5 3.4 39,783.9

 4 - - - - - - 16.8 - - 0.0 - 18,502.7 18,519.5

Total (km ) 126.6 123.3 265.8 905.4 743.8 190.1 1,970.6 38.2 93.4 73.1 36,982.5 18,506.2 232.9 60,251.8 2
A12-1

Appendix 12. List of Example GAP Applications (Maine examples under AStatewide Planning”).

Businesses and Non-government Organizations:

The following are some examples of applications of GAP data by the private sector:

$ The Wyoming Natural Heritage Program (a private non-government organization) transformed

the endangered and sensitive species database into a spatially referenced digital geographic

information system using the GAP digital base map and other GAP spatial data.

$ Hughes Corp. is experimenting with the Utah and Nevada GAP digital base maps, simulating

images to aid the development of new space-based remote sensing devices.

$ The Nature Conservancy used the Wyoming GAP data to develop a map of ecoregions of

Wyoming.

$ Weyerhaeuser Corp. is using the Arkansas GAP data in managing their lands in Arkansas.

$ IBM Corp. is funding a project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that, in part, uses

GAP data in the development of visualization software.

$ NM-GAP vegetation data is being used for an environmental assessment of a proposed

spaceport, a state/private venture.

County and City Planning:

Some other examples of the use of GAP by local governments are:

$ CA-GAP biological data were combined with the Southern California Association of

Governments (SCAG) land ownership data to show which ownerships and jurisdictions were

needed for joint conservation planning and management of a particular natural community or

species, maximizing efficiency and minimizing the potential for yet another conservation crisis.

$ In California, county and city planners of several jurisdictions, wildlife agencies, developers of

the 4S Ranch property, and the state Natural Communities Conservation Planning program

used the GAP regional data, as well as more detailed information, to conserve 1,640 acres of

habitat within a 2,900-acre planned development.

$ Day-to-day county planning operations in Piute, Grande, and Washington counties, Utah.

$ County planners in Piute County, Utah used GAP data to optimize the siting of a proposed

sawmill for aspen with respect to the distribution of aspen stands.

$ Missoula County, Montana, used the GAP land cover map of the area as a base map for its

comprehensive long-range plan.

$ Snohomish County, Washington, used the GAP land cover map in meeting state requirements

for a growth management plan.

$ The City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, used GAP data to assist them in development of a

watershed planning project.

State Uses:
A12-2

The following are some examples of uses of GAP data by state agencies.

$ The GAP database of species habitats was used by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

(TWRA) to update its book ASpecies in Need of Management.@

$ Images of land cover derived from GAP TM data are used by TWRA for locating particular

habitat types. Information on the locations of these habitat types is provided by TWRA to the

public for a wide variety of public service functions, from education to cooperative resource

management.

$ Early GAP data developed by TWRA were used to help identify an extremely important area of

the state with high biodiversity that was subsequently purchased by the state for conservation.

$ Preliminary findings from GAP were used by TWRA to develop three resource management

initiatives.

$ The Tennessee GAP project, which is being carried out primarily by TWRA, is the foundation

of a multi-agency, long-term biodiversity program for Tennessee.

$ GAP data have been used by the Tennessee Forestry Stewardship Program to help develop a

district program for nine conservation planning districts, outlining Best Management Practices

(BMPs) for biological conservation on private lands.

$ GAP data are being used extensively by TWRA in the preparation of project proposals to the

North American Waterfowl Conservation Program. These proposals require that biodiversity

issues are addressed in specific detail. The use of GAP data on occurrence of land cover types

and terrestrial vertebrates has made this possible.

$ The Wyoming Department of Fish and Game (WYF&G) used GAP data to assist them in

transforming the Wildlife Observation System database into a spatially referenced geographic

information system.

$ The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Bear River Water Conservancy District used

the Utah GAP land cover map in a resource management assessment for mitigating conflicts

between a proposed groundwater withdrawal project and the maintenance of an elk calving

area in the Uinta Mountains.

$ The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Sheik Safari

International used the Utah GAP land cover map to identify critical elk habitat. The

environmental profile of these areas was then used to identify other similar areas for elk habitat

enhancement.

$ The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources used the Utah GAP land cover map for a rapid

ecological assessment of the Echo Henefer Wildlife Management Area.

$ The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife used GAP data to develop a breeding bird

atlas and an atlas of mammals of Washington State.

$ The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife uses GAP data to operate an integrated

landscape management program.

$ The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife uses GAP data from Eastern Washington to

assist with an innovative program that brings the forest products industry, state agency

biologists, non-government organizations, and tribal biologists together in the field to jointly

determine the appropriate management practices for any particular site of concern (Timber, Fish
A12-3

& Wildlife Program).

$ The Idaho Department of Fish and Game used GAP data to evaluate the impact from expanded

military training activities on public lands in Southern Idaho.

$ The Idaho Department of Fish and Game uses GAP data for regional planning efforts on a

regular basis.

Statewide Planning:

Biodiversity planning programs or projects are now under way in Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine,

Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee. It is likely that similar efforts will develop in other states. 

In some cases, these efforts grew out of the state GAP project, however, in most cases, the GAP data

are being used to meet a previously defined need. In all cases, GAP data are central to their

development and operations. The goals of each of these programs or projects are presented briefly

below.

In Maine, data on vertebrate trends and status were used in a statewide assessment of biodiversity done

as part of the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project (i.e., W. B. Krohn and R. B. Boone listed as

Collaborators in Gawler et al. 1996). Maine GAP was acknowledged by the State Planning Office for

providing data that greatly assisted the Governor=s Land Acquisition Priorities Advisory Committee

(LAPAC). Four of the five areas recommended for acquisition focus by LAPAC were areas identified

by Maine GAP. Cooperative work with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

(MDIFW) will use gap habitat data, and selected species data collected by the state, to define and test

habitat relationships models. These models will be applied to the statewide gap habitat database to

assess conditions for selected upland and wetland species across the state. These habitat assessments,

in turn, will become part of MDIFW planning done under the Federal Aide Program of the US Fish and

Wildlife Service. An ongoing study, based on gap databases, will determine the degree to which

private, state, and federal conservation lands have captured the state=s natural variability.

Federal Agency Applications:

Some examples of applications of GAP data by federal agencies follow:

$ GAP data are being supplied to all military installations in the Great Basin ecoregion for

integrated management of the natural resources. These installations constitute a very large

amount of land area. Much of it is of high value for native species.

$ The Ouachita National Forest used the Arkansas GAP data to help them develop an ecosystem

management plan.

$ The Wyoming GAP data were used by NASA to calibrate a model that predicts vegetation

types based on climate and soil variables.

$ The potential contributions to biodiversity conservation of four different options proposed for

new wilderness designation in Idaho were quantified by the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit in cooperation with the Park Studies Unit.

$ The potential contributions to biodiversity conservation of four different options proposed for
A12-4

new national park designation in Idaho were quantified by the Idaho Cooperative Park Studies

Unit.

$ The US Forest Service in Booneville, Arkansas, used the Arkansas GAP data land cover maps

in a 3-dimensional presentation to provide the public with a visual representation of the region

and to enhance the public's involvement with the National Forest planning process.

$ The US Fish and Wildlife Service regularly uses the GAP data for Southern California for

habitat evaluation and management.

$ The US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service are using the

GAP data for a wide variety of natural resource management operations in Utah. For example,

the entire Utah GAP database is directly linked with existing National Park Service databases

for use by National Parks.

$ The Bureau of Land Management uses the Wyoming GAP data for managing the Buffalo

Resource Area.

$ The US Forest Service used the Utah GAP data to help assist them in evaluating humaninduced impacts to forested lands surrounding ski resorts in central Utah.

$ The US Fish and Wildlife Service in Delaware used GAP data to help identify potential habitat

for the federally endangered Delmarva fox squirrel. These maps were displayed and served as

a catalyst for bringing together people with a stake in the issue.

$ The US Fish and Wildlife Service used the Indiana GAP data as part of a biological assessment

for the base closure of the Jefferson Proving Grounds and its conversion to a National Wildlife

Refuge. This 58,000-acre installation has restricted human access due to unexploded ordinance

and contains some of the highest quality natural habitat in Indiana.

$ The US Fish and Wildlife Service in Louisiana used GAP data to avoid conflict over the

designation of critical habitat of the federally endangered Louisiana black bear.

$ The NOAA Coastal Marine Sanctuary in Washington State uses GAP data for an educational

display.

$ In Washington and New Mexico, digital land cover maps have been distributed to all National

Forests.

$ The US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in New Mexico is using a

GAP clustered imagery as a base for their land cover mapping activities.

$ The DOD is funding the development of an electronic environmental information system for the

Mojave ecoregion, which would use GAP data as a foundation or base layer of information. 

The system will link 29 DOD installations to a common source of environmental information.